Obama’s Anti-Coal Agenda Will Raise Consumer Prices and Unemployment

Whitfield: Obama’s Assault on Coal Will Lead to An 80 Percent Electricity Rate Hike

Obama Plans to make Green Energy Affordable by Making Gasoline and Coal Unaffordable

Obama’s War on Jobs

Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case

Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade? (1 of 2)

Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade? (2 of 2)

George Carlin on Global Warming

George Carlin – Death

Obama’s climate agenda on trial

By Devin Henry

A slate of major environmental rules rolled out by the Obama administration in 2015 will face serious challenges in the new year, as opponents look to beat back the president’s ambitious policies — a core piece of his legacy.

In the lead-up to the landmark Paris climate talks in December — an event that yielded a first-of-its-kind global agreement to cut carbon emissions — the Obama administration released a series of sweeping new environmental rules, each garnering both condemnation and deep-pocketed opposition from interest looking to torpedo the regulations in 2016.

As Obama enters the final year of his presidency, much of his focus on environmental issues will be implementing and preserving the work he’s already done. If 2015 was the year he pushed his environmental agenda forward, 2016 could be the year he looks to preserve it.

Here are some of the biggest regulations Obama finalized or proposed last year, and how they’ll be litigated in 2016.

Clean Power Plan

The most notable environmental rule issued in 2015 was the climate rule for power plants, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation designed to cut carbon emissions from the power sector.

The rule is the centerpiece of Obama’s climate change agenda, and the biggest promise he took with him to the United Nations climate talks. It’s designed to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.

Environmentalists hailed the rule, but it has met with scorching opposition from Republicans, commodity groups, businesses and utilities. Opponents have argued that, while the rule will cut carbon emissions, it will do so at the expense of jobs and American energy bills, which could go up as states shift to cleaner energy mixes.

Dozens of opponents sued against the rule the day in October that it hit the Federal Register, arguing the EPA went beyond its legal authority in assigning states carbon reduction targets.

“EPA’s rule is flatly illegal and one of the most aggressive executive branch power grabs we’ve seen in a long time,” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said. “The EPA cannot do what it intends to do legally.”

The EPA defended the rule as one with “strong scientific and legal foundations” and has sought to protect it from the lawsuits. Opponents want federal judges to issue a stay on the rule and, with legal filings on the matter due on Dec. 23, the first judicial skirmish over the rule is set for early 2016.

Clean Water Rule

A federal court dealt a blow to another EPA rule in 2015 when it blocked implementation of a new rule setting regulatory authority over small waterways.
The so-called “Waters of the United States” rule looks to clarify which streams, wetlands and other smaller waterways the federal government has regulatory authority over.

But opponents of the rule — Republicans, red states and the agriculture industry among them — argue the rule is overly-broad and an unjust expansion of federal power. They sued against the regulation, and two federal courts issued separate injunctions against it in 2015, ruling that opponents have a strong case and could win when their challenges move forward.

The EPA and Army Corps. of Engineers have maintained that the rule is legal and plans to fight the lawsuits against it. The stay didn’t overturn the rule: the courts need to go through the process of making a full ruling on it, and the appeals process could eventually bring the water rule to the Supreme Court.

Ozone

When the Obama administration finalized a new standard for acceptable concentrations of surface-level ozone particles, neither industrial groups nor public health and environmental coalitions were pleased.

Businesses and manufacturers sued over the new 70-parts-per-billion standard in December, arguing that the new standard would be hard to implement and lead to billions of dollars in compliance costs.

“The EPA’s ozone regulation, which could be one of the most expensive in history, is unworkable and overly burdensome for manufacturers and America’s job creators,” said Linda Kelly, the senior vice president and general counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers.

Greens and health officials defended the EPA’s ability to issue the new rule, which came out in October. But they filed lawsuits of their own, arguing regulators should have finalized a standard even stricter than the one they landed on.

“This standard leaves kids, seniors and asthmatics without the protection doctors say they need from this dangerous pollutant,” Earthjustice attorney David Baron said. “The EPA has a duty to set standards that assure our air is safe to breathe. We say they violated that duty here.”

Even before the ozone rule was released, both sides said they expected to sue over the final standard, citing their dueling lawsuits against the EPA the last time it updated the rule, in 2008.

Neither side succeeded then, and the rule stood.

Beyond legal challenges, the power plant, water and ozone rules could all face challenges from congressional Republicans, as well.

While legislative measures stopping the rules are dead with Obama in office, Republicans showed last year that they were willing to try using the appropriations process to block them anyway.

Key Republicans, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have said they plan to exhaust their legislative options for blocking the regulations even with Obama in office. But McConnell acknowledged in October that lawmakers’ hands are likely tied for now, despite passing a since-vetoed Congressional Review Act resolution against the power plan.

“Our options to stop [the Clean Power Plan] are quite limited,” McConnell said then. “We do have the possibility of a CRA. The weakness of that, obviously, is that even though we can pass it through here with a simple majority, [Obama is] likely to veto it.”

Methane emissions

The Obama administration led off 2015 promising to take action on methane emissions from oil and natural gas drilling sites.

The EPA proposed rules in August to require drillers use new technologies to track and block accidental and purposeful leaks when producing and transmitting oil and gas. The proposal kicked up a potential fight with the gas industry.

Greens have said a strong methane rule is one of the last major climate initiatives Obama can effectively push through during his final term in office. Methane has about 25 times the global warming power of carbon dioxide, and a push to cut down on leaks will compliment Obama’s work on carbon emissions elsewhere, they say.

Drillers, though, are skeptical of the rule, saying they are already taking steps to cut methane leaks on their own. They support EPA’s opt-in programs for cutting methane emissions, but warn that actual regulations could “undermine American competitiveness” in the oil and gas sector.

“EPA’s proposal for additional methane regulations on oil and gas wells and transmission are duplicative and costly,” Howard Feldman, the senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, said in December. “They could also undermine the progress our industry has made lowering greenhouse gas emissions.”

U.S. concerned about Russian air strikes in Syria: Kerry

John McCain condemns Russian airstrikes in Syria

Netanyahu glares at U.N. for 45 seconds after berating its silence on Iran threat to Israel

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu glares silently at the United Nations for 45 seconds after berating the organization for their silence in the wake of Iran’s continued threats against the Jewish state.

Russian jets in Syrian skies

Russian Fighter Jets

WORST NIGHTMARE for the US Air Force !!! Russian Air Force Aircraft Documentry

Iran troops to join Syria war, Russia bombs group trained by CIA

By By Laila Bassam and Andrew Osborn

Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria to join a major ground offensive in support of President Bashar al-Assad’s government, Lebanese sources said on Thursday, a further sign of the rapid internationalization of a civil war in which every major country in the region has a stake.

Russian warplanes, in a second day of strikes, bombed a camp run by rebels trained by the CIA, the group’s commander said, putting Moscow and Washington on opposing sides in a Middle East conflict for the first time since the Cold War.

The U.S. and Russian militaries were due to hold talks via video link to seek ways to keep their militaries apart as they wage parallel campaigns of air strikes in Syria, a U.S. defense official said.

Russian jets struck targets near the cities of Hama and Homs in western Syria on the second day of their air campaign.

Moscow said it had hit Islamic State positions, but the areas it struck are mostly held by a rival insurgent alliance, which unlike Islamic State is supported by U.S. allies including Arab states and Turkey.

Hassan Haj Ali, head of the Liwa Suqour al-Jabal rebel group which is part of the Free Syrian Army, told Reuters one of the targets was his group’s base in Idlib province, struck by around 20 missiles in two separate raids. His fighters had been trained by the CIA in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, part of a program Washington says is aimed at supporting groups that oppose both Islamic State and Assad.

“Russia is challenging everyone and saying there is no alternative to Bashar,” Haj Ali said. He said the Russian jets had been identified by members of his group who once served as Syrian air force pilots.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said later that Moscow was targeting Islamic State and did not consider the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army a terrorist group, adding that they should be part of a political solution in Syria.

The aim is to help the Syrian armed forces “in their weak spots”, said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

Two Lebanese sources told Reuters hundreds of Iranian troops had reached Syria in the past 10 days with weapons to mount a major ground offensive. They would also be backed by Assad’s Lebanese Hezbollah allies and by Shi’ite militia fighters from Iraq, while the Russia would provide air support.

“The vanguard of Iranian ground forces began arriving in Syria: soldiers and officers specifically to participate in this battle. They are not advisers … we mean hundreds with equipment and weapons. They will be followed by more,” one of the sources said.

So far, direct Iranian military support for Assad has come mostly in the form of military advisers. Iran has also mobilized Shi’ite militia fighters, including Iraqis and some Afghans, to fight alongside Syrian government forces.

SAME ENEMIES, DIFFERENT FRIENDS

Russia’s decision to join the war with air strikes on behalf of Assad, as well as the increased military involvement of Iran, could mark a turning point in a conflict that has drawn in most of the world’s military powers.

With the United States leading an alliance waging its own air war against Islamic State, the Cold War superpower foes, Washington and Moscow, are now engaged in combat over the same country for the first time since World War Two.

They say they have the same enemies – the Islamic State group of Sunni Muslim militants who have proclaimed a caliphate across eastern Syria and northern Iraq.

But they also have very different friends, and sharply opposing views of how to resolve the 4-year-old Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 250,000 people and driven more than 10 million from their homes.

Washington and its allies oppose both Islamic State and Assad, believing he must leave power in any peace settlement.

Washington says a central part of its strategy is building “moderate” insurgents to fight against both Assad and Islamic State, although so far it has struggled to find many fighters to accept its training.

Moscow supports the Syrian president and believes his government should be the centerpiece of international efforts to fight extremist groups.

It appears to be using the common campaign against Islamic State as a pretext to strike against groups supported by Washington and its allies, as a way of defending a Damascus government with which Moscow has been allied since the Cold War.

The Russian strikes represent a bold move by President Vladimir Putin to assert influence beyond his own neighborhood: it is the first time Moscow has ordered its forces into combat outside the frontiers of the former Soviet Union since its disastrous Afghanistan campaign in the 1980s.

GAME CHANGER

In the second day of strikes, Russia said it launched eight sorties with Sukhoi warplanes overnight, hitting an ammunition depot near Idlib, a three-storey Islamic State command center near Hama and a car bomb factory in the north of Homs. None of those areas has a large presence of Islamic State.

Al-Mayadeen, a pro-Damascus television channel based in Lebanon, said the jets carried out at least 30 strikes against an insurgent alliance known as the Army of Conquest. The alliance includes the Nusra Front, al Qaeda’s Syrian branch, but not Islamic State.

The station later said Russian forces had also struck Islamic State positions in Raqqa province in the east. This could not be immediately confirmed.

The Russian and Iranian intervention in support of Assad comes at a time when momentum in the conflict had swung against his government and seem aimed at reversing insurgent gains.

“The Russian strikes are a game changer. Damascus is off the hook,” a diplomat tracking Syria said.

The Army of Conquest in particular has been advancing against government forces in northwestern Syria, supported by regional countries that oppose both Assad and Islamic State.

Russia says its air strikes, unlike Washington’s, are legitimate because they have Assad’s blessing, and more effective because they can coordinate with government forces to find targets.

Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi of neighboring Iraq, where Washington is also leading an air war against Islamic State while Iran aids government forces on the ground, said he would be open to Russian strikes as well.

In Syria, insurgent-held Idlib province is of particular strategic importance to the government because it is close to Assad’s heartland on the Mediterranean coast, where Russia also has its only Mediterranean naval base.

A Syrian military source said on Thursday that Russian military support would bring a “big change” in the course of the conflict, particularly through advanced surveillance capabilities that could pinpoint insurgent targets.

Putin’s gamble of going to war in Syria comes a year after he defied the West to annex Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula, drawing U.S. and EU economic sanctions while igniting a wave of popular nationalist support at home.

He appears to be betting that decisive action to aid Assad will improve Russia’s position at future talks on a political settlement, safeguard its control of the naval base and limit the influence of regional rivals like NATO member Turkey. It could also help his image at home as a strong leader willing to challenge global rivals, first and foremost the United States.

US, Russia hold military talks to avoid mishaps over Syria

The Pentagon held talks with Moscow officials Thursday to try to avoid mishaps between the two military powers, though it wasn’t clear how fruitful the effort was amid a second day of Russian bombing in Syria.

US military officials were furious Wednesday after Russia only gave them an hour’s vague “heads-up” it was about to begin bombing. The warning didn’t specify when or where the strikes would occur, only that coalition planes should avoid the area.

With a US-led coalition carrying out near-daily plane and drone strikes in Syria, the new reality of Russia flying sorties in the same air space has left the Pentagon worried about planes crossing paths and sparking a major international incident.

Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said Defense Department officials spoke with Russian counterparts for about an hour via video in what he said was a “cordial and professional” exchange.

He gave few details but said officials discussed which international frequencies could be used if a pilot was in distress and what language aircrews should communicate with each other in.

“We made crystal clear that at a minimum the priority here should be the safe operation of the aircrews over Syria,” Cook said. No follow-up calls had been scheduled yet, he added.

The United States has repeatedly stressed the urgent need for Russia to communicate with it about when and where it plans to fly its fighter jets and bombers. In military jargon, such discussions are known as “deconfliction.”

Russia on Wednesday launched its first air strikes in Syria, marking its explosive arrival in the 4.5-year-old conflict that has claimed some 250,000 lives.

Strikes continued Thursday with Russian warplanes hitting opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The Russians currently have at least 32 warplanes deployed in Syria, US officials say.

Putin’s Jets in Syria Are a Threat to the U.S.

Putin just deployed an array of jets and missiles to the Middle East. But they’re not the kind of weapons he’d need to fight ISIS. They’re built for countering another major power.

On September 30, Russian lawmakers unanimously approved President Vladimir Putin’s plan to begin combat operations in Syria—and hours later Moscow’s warplanes in the region began attacking what the Russians said were ISIS militants.Right before the bombs rained down, a Russian general arrived in Baghdad warned the U.S. military planners to keep America’s own warplanes out of the way. U.S. officials said they would not alter their flight plans.This is the beginning of a dangerous new phase of the international intervention in the Syrian civil war. Not only has Russia tried to order U.S. forces to step aside, it actually has the firepower to back up its demands. Some of the 35 warplanes Russia has deployed to Syria are specifically designed for fighting foes like the United States, not ISIS.Seemingly out of nowhere on September 21, they appeared at an air base in Latakia, a regime stronghold in western Syria—28 of the Russian air force’s best warplanes, including four Su-30 fighters and a number of Su-25 attack planes and Su-24 bombers.Soon six more Su-34 bombers and at least one Il-20 spy plane followed, part of a contingent of Russia forces reportedly including some 500 troops plus armored vehicles and SA-15 and SA-22 surface-to-air missiles.For U.S. and allied officials observing the deployment, there has been plenty of cause for confusion…and alarm. It’s not just that, more than four years into Syria’s bloody civil war, Russia has decided to jump in and make things more complicated.No, it’s what kinds of weapons—planes and missiles, especially—Moscow decided to send, and what those weapons say about the Kremlin’s ultimate plan in Syria. Many of them don’t seem to bewell-suited to fighting ISIS. They’re built to battle adversaries like the United States.To be clear, 35 warplanes and a few surface-to-air missiles aren’t a lot in the grand scheme of things. There’s no shortage of military aircraft flying over Syria five years into the country’s bloody civil war.Every day some of Syria’s aging Soviet-made planes—from the 300 or so that have survived four years of combat—take off from regime airfields to bomb ISIS militants and secular rebels slowly advancing on Syria’s main population centers.Meanwhile hundreds of jets from the American-led international coalition have been waging, since the fall of 2014, an intensive air campaign against ISIS and al Qaeda targeting just the militants.What’s weird and alarming about the Russian contingent is that it’s not really optimal for attacking lightly armed insurgent fighters. Surface-to-air missiles areonly good for destroying enemy aircraft, which Syrian rebels do not possess. And the Su-30s are best suited for tangling with other high-tech forces.Who in region possesses these high-tech forces? The United States, for one. Israel, too. Why, the United States, of course. Russia’s warplanes and missiles in Syria could pose a threat to America’s own aircraft flying over the country—all in order to carve out and preserve a portion of Syria that the United States can’t touch.Officially, Russia has deployed its forces to Syria to reinforce embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and help defeat the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

“There is no other way to settle the Syrian conflict other than by strengthening the existing legitimate government agencies, support them in their fight against terrorism,” President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with American news networks ahead of his September 28 meeting with President Obama at the United Nations in New York City.

“There are more than 2,000 militants in Syria from the former Soviet Union,” Putin said. “Instead of waiting for them to return home we should help President al-Assad fight them there, in Syria.”

But that’s only a portion of the Russian air arsenal. The problem is, the Su-30s are next to useless for fighting ISIS. The Sukhoi fighters are primarily air-to-air fighters—and some of the best in the world. Besides Russia, China also flies versions of the twin-engine, supersonic Su-30 and has even begun outfitting them with new air-to-air missiles that U.S. Air Force Gen. Herbert Carlisle has repeatedly described as one of his biggest worries.

In a series of aerial war games in the last decade, India’s own Su-30s have tangled with—and reportedly defeated—American and British fighters in mock combat, sparking minor controversies in both countries as their respective air forcesscrambled to explain why the Russian-made planes weren’t necessarily superior to U.S. F-15s and British Typhoon jets.

It’s obvious why Russia, China, and India, among other countries, would deploy Su-30s to counter heavily armed enemies possessing high-tech fighters of their own. But that doesn’t explain the Russian Su-30s in Syria. “I have not seen [ISIS] flying any airplanes that require sophisticated air-to-air capabilities,” U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, the military head of NATO, told an audience in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 28.

Moreover, Breedlove said Russia didn’t need to deploy the SA-15 and SA-22 surface-to-air missiles to Syria if its mission is to help Assad beat ISIS. “I have not seen ISIL flying any airplanes that require SA-15s or SA-22s,” he said, using one of several acronyms for the militant group.

Breedlove said he suspects Russia is trying to set up what the military calls a “anti-access, area-denial,” or A2AD, zone in western Syria. Moscow has recently established these zones in the Baltic region and in the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014. “We are a little worried about another A2AD bubble being created in the eastern Mediterranean,” Breedlove said.

The point of these zones is to give Russia exclusive access to strategic regions, Breedlove claimed. In the case of western Syria, an A2AD zone helps to ensure that Moscow can send forces into the eastern Mediterranean, which NATO has dominated since the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991.

Russian access to the Mediterranean via Syria requires that Assad’s regime survives, however. In that sense, Moscow’s strategic aims dovetail with the Syrian regime’s goals. Thus the Su-25s, Su-24s, and Su-34s very well could end up joining Damascus’s air war on the rebels and militants. The Su-30s, however, will probably be guarding against a very different enemy.

Of course, high-end warplanes can be repurposed to fight lower-tech foes—the U.S. has done just that, in its decade and a half bombing Afghanistan and Iraq. And many militaries deploy air-to-air fighters merely as precautions. A small contingent of U.S. Air Force F-22 stealth fighters, which can carry bombs but are best at aerial fights, plays a leading role in the coalition air campaign targeting ISIS.

The F-22s act as “quarterbacks,” according to Carlisle, using their sophisticated sensors to spot targets for other planes and also protecting those planes against Syrian fighters and missiles. To date, the Syrian regime has not attempted to interfere with the U.S.-led bombing runs, but the F-22s keep flying.

But neither has the coalition tried to interfere with the Syrian air force’s attacks on opposition fighters—yet. U.S. Army Special Forces have been training, at great expense, a small number of Syria rebels the Pentagon had hoped could form the core of a reinvigorated, secular rebel force that can knock back ISIS.

The problem is, many rebel trainees in the American program have made it clearthey prefer to fight the regime first. Many have dropped out of the program in the face of Washington’s demands, compelling the Pentagon to remove them from the training effort. U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told Congress, using the administration’s preferred acronym for ISIS, that he wants recruits “to have the right mindset and ideology, not be aligned with groups like ISIL…[and] to fight ISIL.”

“It turns out to be very hard to identify people who meet both of those criteria,” Carter added.

Worse, once the recruits complete their training and go to fight ISIS, the U.S. military will have “some obligations” to protect them, Carter said. If U.S.-trained rebels turn their weapons against the Syrian regime and Russian warplanes bomb them, would that compel American F-22s to attack the Russians—and then force the Russian Su-30s to intervene?

It’s not hard to see how Russia’s support of Assad could run afoul of America’s support for secular Syrian rebels—and how Moscow’s effort to establish an aerial foothold in Syria could draw U.S. and Russian jet fighters into battle with each other.

Don’t pretend for a moment that that terrifying notion hasn’t crossed the minds of generals and politicians in both Moscow and Washington.

Russia has sent over 50 military aircraft to Syria: ministry

Russia has sent more than 50 military aircraft as well as marines, paratroopers and special forces into Syria, where it has launched air strikes against Islamic State militants, the defence ministry said on Thursday.

“More than 50 warplanes and helicopters are part of the Russian airforce striking Islamic State targets in Syria,” defence ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov told the Interfax news agency.

Russia on Wednesday waded into the multi-front conflict, launching air strikes against what Moscow said were IS militants battling its Soviet-era ally Syria.

In the run-up to the strikes, Russia had expanded its naval facility in the port city of Tartus and established a military base in Latakia, the stronghold of the beleaguered regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Konashenkov said marines, paratroopers and special force units would be mobilised to protect Russia’s military assets.

On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for a broad UN-backed coalition to fight IS jihadists as he addressed the UN General Assembly for the first time in a decade.

Moscow has been pushing for a broader coalition to fight the Islamic State group to include allies of the Assad regime, an idea that the West has rejected.

Putin’s proposal is seen as a direct challenge to US President Barack Obama who has vowed to crush IS and called on countries to join the United States in its campaign.

Moscow has ruled out joining the US-led coalition.

“Theoretically, it would look nice (to join the US-led coalition) from a political point of view, but I think that we have difficulty understanding the principles on which the coalition is acting,” foreign ministry official Ilya Rogachyov said.

“On the basis that the coalition currently exists, we are unlikely to join,” he told the state news agency RIA Novosti.

Russia has appointed Lieutenant General Sergei Kuralenko to represent Russia at the Baghdad-based intelligence task force Moscow is setting up with Iran, Iraq and Syria, a defence ministry spokesman said on Thursday.

Here’s how the Russian Air Force moved 28 aircraft to Syria (almost) undetected

David Cenciotti, The AviationistSatellite imagery released in the last couple of days has exposed the presence of 28 Russian aircraft at al-Assad airfield, near Latakia, in western Syria.The photographs taken from space gave us the possibility to identify the combat planes as 4x Su-30SMs, 12x Su-25s (based on their color scheme, these are Su-25SMs belonging to the 368th Assault Aviation Regiment from Budyonnovsk) and 12 Su-24M2s along with about a dozen helicopters, including 10 Mi-24PN, Mi-35M and a couple of Mi-8AMTSh choppers, from the 387th Army Aviation Air Base Budyonnovsk.One of our sources with IMINT Imagery Intel experience, who has had access to the imagery in the public domain, noticed something interesting on one of the Su-30SM: the first on the left (the one closer to the runway threshold) should be equipped with a KNIRTI SPS-171 / L005S Sorbtsiya-S mid/high band defensive jammer (ECM) at the wing tips. To be honest this is almost impossible to verify unless more high-resolution images become available.

Whilst satellite shots provided much details about the deployed assets, they obviously didn’t help answer the basic question: how did they manage to reach Syria undetected?

There is someone who believes that during their ferry flight, some if not all the formation (each made of a cargo plane and four accompanying fast jets), may have made a stopover in Iran before flying the last leg to Latakia. This would also explain why some Il-76s (with an endurance that would allow a non-stop fly from Russia to Latakia) were observed stopping at Hamadan on Sept. 18-19, just before the Sukhois started appearing on the tarmac at Latakia.

Also interesting is the activity of several Israeli aircraft, including a G550 “Nachshon Aitam,” a sort of mini-AWACS equipped with 2 L-band antennas, on both sides of the fuselage, and 2 S-band antennas, on the nose and tail of the aircraft.

Community Reacts To NYPD Officers Shot While On Duty

48 Black Guerilla Family gang members indicted

Black Guerrilla Family

Experts testify Black Guerilla Family ordered hit

Communists on Campus: The Weather Underground

The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American radical left organization founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen. Weatherman first organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the US government.

With revolutionary positions characterized by Black liberation rhetoric,[2] the group conducted a campaign of bombings through the mid-1970s, including aiding the jailbreak and escape of Timothy Leary. The “Days of Rage”, their first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago timed to coincide with the trial of the Chicago Seven. In 1970 the group issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States government, under the name “Weather Underground Organization” (WUO).[4]

The bombing attacks mostly targeted government buildings, along with several banks. Most were preceded by evacuation warnings, along with communiqués identifying the particular matter that the attack was intended to protest. No persons were killed in any of their acts of property destruction, although three members of the group were killed in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion. For the bombing of the United States Capitol on March 1, 1971, they issued a communiqué saying it was “in protest of the U.S. invasion of Laos”. For the bombing of the Pentagon on May 19, 1972, they stated it was “in retaliation for the U.S. bombing raid in Hanoi”. For the January 29, 1975 bombing of the United States Department of State building, they stated it was “in response to escalation in Vietnam”.[4]

The Weathermen grew out of the Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM) faction of SDS. It took its name from the lyric “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”, from the Bob Dylan song “Subterranean Homesick Blues”. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows was the title of a position paper they distributed at an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18, 1969. This founding document called for a “white fighting force” to be allied with the “Black Liberation Movement” and other radical movements[5] to achieve “the destruction of US imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism”.[6]

The Weathermen disintegrated after the United States reached a peace accord in Vietnam in 1973, after which the New Left declined.

Larry Grathwohl on Ayers’ plan for American re-education camps and the need to kill millions

NY Police Executions by Muslim Terrorist! Christian Video Channel

Has Race War Begun with The Execution of 2 NYPD Officers?

Earlier reports stated members were “preparing to shoot on duty police officers”

by KURT NIMMO | INFOWARS.COM |

The suspected shooter, Ismaaiyl Abdulah Brinsley, is said to have killed the police officers in retaliation for the death of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.

On Saturday evening the New York Daily News reported Brinsley, who reportedly committed suicide after the execution, is suspected of being involved with the Black Guerrilla Family prison gang.

In early December Sergeants Benevolent Association President Ed Mullins said Black Guerrilla Family members were “preparing to shoot on duty police officers.”

The Black Guerrilla Family, also known as the Black Family or the Black Vanguard, was founded by George Jackson in 1966.

Jackson, a criminal serving time at San Quentin in California for armed robbery, became a Marxist and Maoist while in prison. He was killed in 1971 during an escape attempt three days before he was scheduled to go on trial for allegedly killing a prison guard. The authorities continually changed their story about a gun they said Jackson had in his possession.

The Black Guerrilla Family was said to be associated with the Black Liberation Army, Symbionese Liberation Army, the Weather Underground, and other leftist groups.

The Black Liberation Army was infiltrated by the FBI and two members of the Symbionese Liberation Army,William and Emily Harris, are suspected government operatives. The the Weather Underground was also compromised by the FBI, as an informant, the late Larry Grathwohl, admitted in his 1976 book, “Bringing Down America.”

In 1989 a Black Liberation Army member fatally shot and killed Huey P. Newton, the co-founder and leader of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense.

NEW YORK POLICE OFFICERS SHOT DEAD IN SQUAD CAR ‘ASSASSINATION’

“It’s difficult to find the words,” New York City Police Commissioner William J. Bratton said Saturday night.

Without provocation, an attacker ambushed officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos while they sat in their marked patrol car in the Bedford-Stuyvesant Area of Brooklyn at 2:47 in the afternoon. “They were quite simply assassinated,” Bratton said, “targeted for their uniform.”

While Liu and Ramos sat in full uniform in a Critical Response Vehicle in the 84th precinct, a man approached the passenger door, assumed a “shooting stance,” and fired several times through the window. Both officers were struck in the head and died from their wounds.

The Commissioner said that the officers had no warning and may not have had the opportunity to see the assailant, much less reach for their weapons. The attack was entirely unprovoked.

The suspected murderer is 28-year-old Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley. Though Brinsley’s last known residence was in Georgia, according to reports, he was in Baltimore earlier in the day.

After the shooting, Brinsley ran from the scene and turned into a G-train subway station, where he descended to the platform. He was pursued by other officers. When he reached the platform, Brinsley shot himself in the head, taking his own life.

At approximately 5:45 AM Saturday morning, according to Bratton, Brinsley shot his former girlfriend in the stomach.

At 2:45 PM, a warning was sent from Baltimore to the New York Police Department and other agencies, moments before Liu and Ramos were murdered.

A visibly shaken Bratton noted that authorities are investigating social media posts that suggest Brinsley had planned to kill police officers to avenge the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. Garner died while in a chokehold in New York City and Brown was shot dead by a St. Louis police officer. After grand juries decided not to indict the police officers involved, protests broke out and have continued to this day.

“It’s clear that this was an assassination; the officers were shot execution style,” Bill de Blasio told the media. The NYC Mayor went on to describe the ambush as an assault on all New Yorkers and civil society in general: “Our entire city was attacked.”

De Blasio and Bratton called for any information about this attack or any other like it that may occur in the future. Both men, overcome by emotion, expressed fear that this incident may not be isolated.

Bratton, calling for vigilance, emphasized that the police officers in the NYPD were warned in this instance, but it was too late.

Officer Liu, 32-years-old, had served on the force for two years and was married just two months ago. Bratton said that he spoke with the fallen policeman’s new bride before addressing the press.

Ramos, who turned 40-years-old on December 12, “achieved his dream” of becoming a New York police officer three years prior. He is survived by his wife and 13-year-old son, who “couldn’t comprehend what happened to his father,” according the Commissioner.

This is “not a time for politics or political analysis,” said the New York City Mayor, before concluding his remarks by requesting prayers for the families, for the NYPD, and for the city of New York.

Alexander Marlow contributed to this report.

***

NEW YORK (AP) — A gunman who announced online that he was planning to shoot two “pigs” in retaliation for the chokehold death of Eric Garner ambushed two police officers in a patrol car and shot them to death in broad daylight Saturday before running to a subway station and killing himself, authorities said.

The suspect, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, wrote on an Instagram account: “I’m putting wings on pigs today. They take 1 of ours, let’s take 2 of theirs,” officials said. He used the hashtags Shootthepolice RIPErivGardner (sic) RIPMikeBrown.

Police said he approached the passenger window of a marked police car and opened fire, striking Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu in the head. The officers were on special patrol in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn.

“They were, quite simply, assassinated — targeted for their uniform. … They were ambushed and murdered,” said Police Commissioner William Bratton, who looked pale and shaken at a hospital news conference.

Brinsley took off running and went down to a nearby subway station, where he shot himself. A silver handgun was recovered at the scene.

“This may be my final post,” he wrote in the Instagram post that included an image of a silver handgun.

Bratton confirmed that Brinsley made very serious “anti-cop” statements online but did not get into specifics of the posts. He said they were looking at whether the suspect had attended any rallies or demonstrations. Two city officials with direct knowledge of the case confirmed the posts to The Associated Press. The officials, a senior city official and a law enforcement official, were not authorized to speak publicly on the topic and spoke on condition of anonymity,

The Rev. Al Sharpton said the family of Garner, killed by a police chokehold this year, had no connection to the suspect and denounced the violence.

“Any use of the names of Eric Garner and Michael Brown in connection with any violence or killing of police, is reprehensible and against the pursuit of justice in both cases,” Sharpton said. “We have stressed at every rally and march that anyone engaged in any violence is an enemy to the pursuit of justice for Eric Garner and Michael Brown.”

The shootings come at a tense time. Police in New York are being criticized for their tactics following the death of Garner, who was stopped by police on suspicion of selling loose, untaxed cigarettes. Amateur video captured an officer wrapping his arm around Garner’s neck and wrestling him to the ground. Garner was heard gasping, “I can’t breathe” before he lost consciousness and later died.

“Our city is in mourning. Our hearts are heavy,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio, who spoke softly with moist eyes. “It is an attack on all of us.”

Demonstrators around the country have staged die-ins and other protests since a grand jury decided Dec. 3 not to indict the officer in Garner’s death, a decision that closely followed a Missouri grand jury’s refusal to indict a white officer in the fatal shooting of Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old.

In a statement Saturday night, Attorney General Eric Holder condemned the shooting deaths as senseless and “an unspeakable act of barbarism.”

Earlier Saturday, Bratton said, Brinsley went to the home of a former girlfriend in the Baltimore area and shot and wounded her. Police there said they noticed Brinsley posting to the woman’s Instagram account about a threat to New York officers. Baltimore-area officials sent a warning flier to New York City police, who received it around the time of the shooting, Bratton said.

A block from the shooting site, a line of about eight police officers stood with a German shepherd blocking the taped-off street. Streets were blocked off even to pedestrians.

The president of the police officers union, Patrick Lynch, and Blasio have been locked in a public battle over treatment of officers following the grand jury’s decision. Just days ago, Lynch suggested police officers sign a petition that demanded the mayor not attend their funerals should they die on the job.

The last shooting death of an NYPD officer came in December 2011, when 22-year veteran Peter Figoski responded to a report of a break-in at a Brooklyn apartment. He was shot in the face and killed by one of the suspects hiding in a side room when officers arrived. The triggerman, Lamont Pride, was convicted of murder and sentenced in 2013 to 45 years to life in prison.

Obama’s ‘propaganda’ pushed people to ‘hate the police,’ Giuliani says

President Obama has engaged in “propaganda” encouraging people to “hate the police,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) charged a day after two city police officers were shot and killed in their patrol car by a man who posted anti-police messages to his social media account.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We’ve had four months of propaganda starting with the president that everybody should hate the police,” Giuliani said during an appearance on Fox News early Sunday. “The protests are being embraced, the protests are being encouraged. The protests, even the ones that don’t lead to violence, a lot of them lead to violence, all of them lead to a conclusion: The police are bad, the police are racist. That is completely wrong.”
Giuliani said he did not agree with statements like those from Pat Lynch, the president of the largest police union in New York City, who said the current mayor, Bill de Blasio (D), had blood on his hands.

“I think it goes too far to blame the mayor for the murder or to ask for the mayor’s resignation,” Giuliani said.

“I feel bad for the mayor,” Giuliani continued. “He must be heartbroken over the loss of two police officers. I can’t believe this is what he wanted. I don’t think he’s a bad man in any way.”

But, Giuliani said, de Blasio is “pursuing the wrong policies” and should not have given protesters demonstrating against the police killings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown as much leeway.

“I don’t think it goes too far to say the mayor did not properly police the protests,” Giuliani said. “He allowed the protesters to take over the streets. He allowed them to hurt police officers, to commit crimes, and he didn’t arrest them. And when you do that, similar to what happened in Crown Heights, you create a great riot. He should have known better. For that he has to take accountability.”

In a statement Saturday, the president said he “unconditionally” condemned the attack on the police officers and called for the nation to “turn to words that heal.”

“Two brave men won’t be going home to their loved ones tonight, and for that, there is no justification,” the president, vacationing in Hawaii, said in a statement. “The officers who serve and protect our communities risk their own safety for ours every single day — and they deserve our respect and gratitude every single day.”

The heinous murders of two NYPD police officers were at the hands of thug who’s record is longer than a roll of toilet paper. Ismaaiyl was no stranger to the law, and had many felony charges including ones involving firearms.

The rhetoric that President Obama and all the race baiters continue to push have directly caused this unstable person to snap. For weeks protesters have been calling on the deaths of police officers as seen here in this video. “What do we want? DEAD COPS!”

Obama’s Mentor: Frank Marshall Davis—The Communist—Book: Mark Levin

OBAMA’s REAL FATHER is Frank Marshall Davis !!!

Obama’s Influences – Frank Marshall Davis

Obama returns to class warfare as poll numbers plunge

Turning his attention yet again to the economy, President Obama on Wednesday zeroed in on the “defining challenge” of this generation — growing income inequality between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America.

But the president didn’t unveil any grand proposals to tackle the problem; instead, he repeated a laundry list of initiatives centered on many familiar themes: economic growth through government investment; job training and education reform; stronger protections for labor unions and paycheck fairness legislation; a hike to the minimum wage; and a revamped approach to how Americans save for retirement in private accounts and in government programs such as Social Security.

Although his speech was short on specific ideas, it was big on ambition. The president talked in broad terms about how the greatest nation on earth must not allow the middle class to stagnate and the poor to get poorer as rich Americans’ net worth grows.

“I believe this is the defining challenge of our time — making sure our economy works for every working American. That’s why I ran for president,” Mr. Obama said at an event in Southeast Washington hosted by the left-leaning Center for American Progress. “It drives everything I do in this office. I know I’ve raised this issue before and some will ask why I raise the issue again right now. I do it because the outcomes of the debates we’re having right now, whether it’s health care, or the budget, or reforming our housing and financial systems, all of these things will have real practical implications for every American. I am convinced the decisions we make on these issues over the next few years will determine whether our children grow up in an America where opportunity is real.”

Pointing out widening income disparities is not new for Mr. Obama, who spoke of the issue often during both of his presidential campaigns. Indeed, it has become a focal point of politics in the U.S. and led some leaders such as former Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, to declare there are “two Americas” — one for the rich and another for everyone else.

The question isn’t whether income inequality should be addressed, analysts say, but how the problem should be approached. On that front, they say, Mr. Obama simply is offering more of the same.

“What I heard was the same old, very broad brush strokes: We need to help the middle class, we need to raise the minimum wage and we need to do more infrastructure projects. More spending,” said Lance Roberts, CEO of STA Wealth Management who has more than 25 years of experience in private banking, investment management and venture capital.

“Let’s throw money at it,” Mr. Roberts said of the administration’s approach to income disparities and a generally poor economy. “If it doesn’t work, it’s because we didn’t throw enough money at it. We’ve done five years of this.”

In those five years, income inequality has hit a record level, according to a September report from the University of California, Berkeley. The study shows that income gaps continue to grow despite the administration’s intentions.

From 2009 to 2012, the top 1 percent of incomes in the U.S. grew by more than 31 percent, while the bottom 99 percent went up by 0.4 percent. During the same period, the top 1 percent of earners captured 95 percent of all income gains.

In 2012, as Mr. Obama neared the end of his first term that imposed massive government investment through his stimulus package, the top 1 percent of American incomes rose by nearly 20 percent while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew by just 1 percent, according to the Berkeley report.

Republicans seized on the president’s remarks and framed them against the backdrop of such grim income statistics.

“The American dream is certainly more in doubt than in decades, but after more than five years in office, the president has no one to blame but himself,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

The president’s approach is “more stimulus, more government programs and more government intervention into the job-creating private sector,” Mr. Buck said. “By now, and by the president’s own admission, it should be clear that is not the solution.”

Income inequality usually is framed in purely economic terms, but the president cast it in a broader light and said it poses a fundamental threat to American democracy.

VETERANS REMOVE BARRICADES FROM MEMORIALS AND BRING THEM TO WH

On Sunday, protesting the barricades placed at memorials around Washington D.C. by the vindictive Obama administration, veterans removed the barricades and proceeded to take them to the White House. Multiple people tweeted photos of the barricades being removed and taken for presidential inspection:

Former Marine Thomas Sowell

Barricades

Veterans remove barricades from World War II Memorial and carry them to the White House, October 13, 2013. Set to the music of “The Home of the Brave,” by Gregory Sidak.

Million Vet March Sunday! – Military Rallies Against Memorial Shutdowns – Wake Up America!

The Anatomy of an Election: Technology with Sasha Issenberg

The Victory Lab: ‘Moneyball for Politics'” Sasha Issenberg

A Conversation with Sasha Issenberg

Sasha Issenberg discusses the 2012 Obama campaign

Sasha Issenberg discusses the use of social science experiments in Rick Perry’s 2006 campaign

Sasha Issenberg speaks at NationBuilder

How They Did It: Political Tactics That Helped Obama Win

Can You Replicate the Obama Strategy? | The New School for Public Engagement

Political campaigns have revolutionized the way they target, contact and motivate supporters. Strategists are taking the insights of experimental social science and marrying them to the corporate world’s Big Data marketing tools. The Obama Campaign won in large part by using statistical modeling techniques to identify persuadable voters and to fine-tune persuasive messages. This is politics today and in the future—not only for elections but on issue campaigns for education reform, health care, the environment, labor rights and beyond. Who are the pioneers? And how might you apply their the strategies?

CPS Takes Baby Away After Mom seeks 2nd opinion for her baby at a different hospital. The doctor in the first hospital wanted urgently to do questionable surgery and treatment on the baby.

Anna and Alex Nikolayev, a married couple, just had their child cruelly ripped from them all because of the fact that they were trying to find the best possible health treatments for their child.

If you had similar CPS situation like the Nikolayev’s with Sammy, or you’re just a supporter, you need to write to your legislative representative through the link below. Committee on Legislative Audit in California State Assembly will be voting on the CPS audit on June 5th. Let your voices heard. They need your stories, as many as possible. Write them, e-mail them:http://legaudit.assembly.ca.gov/membe…

2013-04-30, Tues Glenn Beck Show, The Blaze TV

Update on Sacramento CPS Malpractice Case

Russian Parents Fight CPS For Their Child

California Assemblyman Tim Donnelly speaks on CPS and Baby Sammy

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly on Fox News – Baby Sammy and Auditing CPS

California Cops Take Baby From Parents Because They Wanted A 2nd Medical Opinion

CPS Takes Baby After Mom Asks For 2nd Opinion From Doctor part.1

Take Their Baby After They Seek 2nd Medical Opinion
A California couple had their five-month-old baby “snatched” by police after they took the infant to get a second opinion on a medical procedure, they claim.
Anna and Alex Nikolayev are described as loving parents who took their baby, who has a heart murmur, to Sutter Memorial Hospital in Sacramento when he started exhibiting flu-like symptoms. The family has undergone plenty of doctor visits in the last five months for the their son’s heart, and were unsettled by the treatment he was receiving.
At one point, Anna says, a nurse came in and started giving the baby, named Sammy, medicine. When she asked what it was the nurse allegedly replied, “I don’t know.”
“I’m like, you’re working as a nurse, and you don’t even know what to give to my baby…?” Anna said in an interview with ABC’s local affiliate, News10/KXTV.
They later found out that medicine was antibiotics, which Anna claims the doctor told her Sammy shouldn’t have received.
After doctors started discussing heart surgery, the Nikolayevs decided they wanted a second opinion. They weren’t categorically opposed to the procedure, but they wanted a different doctor.
“If we got the one mistake after another, I don’t want to have my baby have surgery in the hospital where I don’t feel safe,” Anna explained.
A number of news agencies have reached out to police, the hospital, and child protective services, but none has spoken out on the issue. News10, which has worked on the story at length, says police and the hospital both referred questions to Child Protective Services, which said it can’t comment on specific cases because of privacy laws. Anna says she was told by a CPS worker that her baby was taken because of “severe neglect.The couple can’t believe the rationale, saying: “We did everything…We went from one hospital to another. We just wanted to be safe, that he is in good hands.”
“It seems like parents have no rights whatsoever,” Alex said. Originally from Russia, he said the situation reminds him of a “communist regime.”
The couple’s attorney, Joe Weinberger, remarked: “It’s absolutely amazing to me how a government can reach out and snatch a child after a doctor said there’s not an issue…As we’ve seen, there is no emergency situation in this case…I can’t imagine having my baby ripped from my arms.”
He acknowledges that the couple erred in taking their baby from Sutter Memorial without a proper discharge, but it has now been roughly two weeks since the situation began. Anna says she was able to visit her baby for an hour last Thursday.
A court date has been scheduled for today, Monday April 29. TheBlaze will keep you posted as the story develops.

Baby Sammy taken by CPS: transfer to Stanford

A California couple had their five-month-old baby “snatched” by police after they took the infant to get a second opinion on a medical procedure, they claim.

Anna and Alex Nikolayev are described as loving parents who took their baby, who has a heart murmur, to Sutter Memorial Hospital in Sacramento when he started exhibiting flu-like symptoms. The family has undergone plenty of doctor visits in the last five months for the their son’s heart, and were unsettled by the treatment he was receiving.

At one point, Anna says, a nurse came in and started giving the baby, named Sammy, medicine. When she asked what it was the nurse allegedly replied, “I don’t know.”

“I’m like, you’re working as a nurse, and you don’t even know what to give to my baby…?” Anna said in an interview with ABC’s local affiliate, News10/KXTV.

They later found out that medicine was antibiotics, which Anna claims the doctor told her Sammy shouldn’t have received.

After doctors started discussing heart surgery, the Nikolayevs decided they wanted a second opinion. They weren’t categorically opposed to the procedure, but they wanted a different doctor.

“If we got the one mistake after another, I don’t want to have my baby have surgery in the hospital where I don’t feel safe,” Anna explained.

The doctors at Sutter Memorial allegedly argued against consulting other health experts, pressuring her to stay put. Anna remained firm. She took her baby from the hospital without a proper discharge, and went straight to Kaiser Permanente Hospital.

Doctors there said the baby was safe to go home with his parents, one writing in the paperwork: “I do not have concern for the safety of the child at home with his parents.”

But while they were at the hospital, police showed up.

“They told us that Sutter was telling them so much bad stuff that they thought that this baby is dying on our arms,” Anna recalled. But when police saw the doctor’s evaluation, Anna says they said, “Okay guys, you have a good day,” and left.

But the family wasn’t at peace for long.

The next day police showed up at the Nikolayev’s home with representatives from Child Protective Services (CPS). Alex went outside to meet them, where he says he was “pushed against the building.” When he asked if he was being placed under arrest, he said they “smacked me down onto the ground [and] yelled out, ‘I think I got the keys to the house.’”

Seeing the scene outside, Anna set up a camera in front of her door.

Video shows police letting themselves in without a warrant, and taking the baby.

“I’m going to grab your baby, and don’t resist, and don’t fight me okay?” one officer can be heard telling the mother in the video.

Anna described it with tears in her eyes: “He’s like, ‘okay let your son go,’ so I had to let him go, and he grabbed my arm, so I couldn’t take Sammy. And they took Sammy, and they just walked away.”

The doctors at Sutter Memorial allegedly argued against consulting other health experts, pressuring her to stay put. Anna remained firm. She took her baby from the hospital without a proper discharge, and went straight to Kaiser Permanente Hospital.

Doctors there said the baby was safe to go home with his parents, one writing in the paperwork: “I do not have concern for the safety of the child at home with his parents.”

But while they were at the hospital, police showed up.

“They told us that Sutter was telling them so much bad stuff that they thought that this baby is dying on our arms,” Anna recalled. But when police saw the doctor’s evaluation, Anna says they said, “Okay guys, you have a good day,” and left.

But the family wasn’t at peace for long.

The next day police showed up at the Nikolayev’s home with representatives from Child Protective Services (CPS). Alex went outside to meet them, where he says he was “pushed against the building.” When he asked if he was being placed under arrest, he said they “smacked me down onto the ground [and] yelled out, ‘I think I got the keys to the house.’”

Seeing the scene outside, Anna set up a camera in front of her door.

Video shows police letting themselves in without a warrant, and taking the baby.

“I’m going to grab your baby, and don’t resist, and don’t fight me okay?” one officer can be heard telling the mother in the video.

Anna described it with tears in her eyes: “He’s like, ‘okay let your son go,’ so I had to let him go, and he grabbed my arm, so I couldn’t take Sammy. And they took Sammy, and they just walked away.”

Background Articles and Videos

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

MSNBC Host Melissa Harris-Perry » All Your Kids Belong To Us

MSNBC Has Declared War on America! – The Five Team Goes Nuclear Over Harris-Perry’s Promo

Melissa Harris-Perry Responds to Criticism: What About My Ad Would ‘Distress People So Much?’

Sister Citizen: Shame Stereotypes and Black Women in America

Melissa Harris-Perry: Your Children Are Not Yours

Melissa Harris-Perry

Melissa Victoria Harris-Perry (born October 2, 1973; formerly known as Melissa Victoria Harris-Lacewell)[1] is an American author, political scientist, television host and liberal political commentator with a focus on African-American politics. Harris-Perry hosts the Melissa Harris-Perry weekend news and opinion television show on MSNBC.

She is a professor of political science at Tulane University. Prior to that, she was an associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University from 2006 to 2010 and taught political science at the University of Chicago from 1999 to 2005.[2][3][4]

Life and career

Melissa Victoria Harris was born in Seattle and grew up in the Virginia cities of Charlottesville and Chester, where she attended Thomas Dale High School. She is the youngest of five children. Her black father, William M. Harris Sr., was dean of Afro-American affairs at the University of Virginia, and her white mother, Diana Gray, taught at a community college and worked for nonprofits that helped poor communities.[3][4] Her mother was raised in a Mormon working-class family in a racially homogeneous neighborhood and went to college at Brigham Young University. After a failed first marriage, her mother left the LDS Church and was a single mother before she met Melissa’s father.[5] “I’ve never thought of myself as biracial,” Harris-Perry says. “I’m black.”[6] Harris-Perry’s family later became Unitarian Universalists.[7]

She received a bachelor of arts in English from Wake Forest University in 1994 and a Ph.D. in political science from Duke University in 1999. She also received an honorary doctorate from Meadville Lombard Theological School.[2][3] Motivated to better understand the role of the black church in political movements, she was a Master of Divinity student at Union Theological Seminary of New York City.[8] Harris-Perry considers her Wake Forest mentor, Maya Angelou, to be her most important inspiration for becoming a professor. “As her student I watched as she influenced public discourse, taught students, and shared ideas in a way that seemed to truly matter for people’s lives.”[9]

Harris-Perry is the author of Barbershops, Bibles, and BET: Everyday Talk and Black Political Thought[10] on the methods African Americans use to develop political ideas through ordinary conversations in places like barbershops, churches, and popular culture. The work won the 2005 W.E.B. DuBois Book Award from the National Conference of Black Political Scientists and the 2005 Best Book Award from the Race and Ethnic Politics Section of the American Political Science Association. Her interests include the study of African-American political thought, black religious ideas and practice, and social and clinical psychology. Harris-Perry is a member of Delta Sigma Theta sorority. In 2009, she was the key note speaker for the Unitarian Universalist Association on “Faith and Reason: Race, Justice, and American Political Life”.[11]

Harris-Perry was Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University from 2006 to 2010, leaving after being denied a full professorship.[12] Currently she is Professor of Political Science at Tulane University.[13]

She was married to Dennis Lacewell from 1999 to 2005, with whom she has a daughter.[13] She currently lives in New Orleans and is married to James Perry,[2] who was a 2010 candidate for mayor in New Orleans.[4] In 2012, two days after the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, Harris-Perry tweeted that the abandoned home in the 7th ward that she and her husband had bought and were restoring was destroyed during Hurricane Isaac.[14]

MSNBC announced on January 5, 2012 that Harris-Perry would host her own weekend show, which began airing on February 18, 2012 at 10 a.m. EST. The show follows Up with Steve Kornacki and leads into Weekends with Alex Witt.[15] According to The New York Times, Perry’s schedule of commuting from New Orleans to New York City for each broadcast will be similar to, but less frequent than, fellow MSNBC personality Lawrence O’Donnell’s weekly commute from Los Angeles to New York City for daily broadcasts of The Last Word.[16]

Memorable quotes

In a 2013 MSNBC promo, Harris-Perry is quoted as saying:

“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children: Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.”[17]

In a discussion regarding the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Harris-Perry is quoted as saying:

“I also appreciate that the hunger strikers are not trying to die. They’re trying to generate autonomy in the context of something that strips their humanity — something we certainly know about from the experience of American slavery, and that the language of ‘before I be a slave, I’d be buried in my grave and go home to my Lord and be free’ — just that idea of creating human freedom within the context of horrible human conditions.”[18]

ARE Americans practicing Communism?

Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto to discover the truth and learn how to know your enemy…Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto… The following brief presents the original ten planks within the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart for each of the planks. From comparison it’s clear MOST Americans have by myths, fraud and deception under the color of law by their own politicians in both the Republican and Democratic and parties, been transformed into Communists.Another thing to remember, Karl Marx in creating the Communist Manifesto designed these planks AS A TEST to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, then the people ARE practicing communists.Communism, by any other name is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are…1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State “income” taxes. We call it “paying your fair share”.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc…).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver’s licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read “controlled or subsidized” rather than “owned”… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920’s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. Americans are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, but are actually “government force-tax-funded schools ” Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like “majority rules”, and “pay your fair share”. WHERE are the words “fair share” in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is “fair share” even suggested !! The philosophical concept of “fair share” comes from the Communist maxim, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. … America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC … Teaching ourselves and others how to “fish” to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be “needy”… Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Do changing words, change the end result? … By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????

The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America… KNOW YOUR ENEMY …Remove the enemy from within and from among us.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN, the only political party in America that still firmly supports and diligently abides by the Constitution of the united States of America.

None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free….

Holly is a manager in Exempt Organizations’ Guidance office, which is responsible for drafting notices, announcements, revenue procedures, and other guidance on exempt organization matters. Holly’s work often involves coordination with the Office of Chief Counsel and the Treasury Department on legislative and technical issues, as well as providing information to the tax writing committees of Congress.

Before coming to Exempt Organizations, Holly served as an attorney-advisor in the Taxpayer Advocate Service, an independent organization within the Internal Revenue Service that helps taxpayers resolve problems with the IRS. She also worked for eight years as an attorney in private practice focusing on exempt organizations issues. She earned her juris doctor from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

The Dirty Dozen Movie Trailer

Dirty Dozen (1967) – General Inspection

Movie of the Week: Dirty Dozen – Lee Marvin Review by Best Movies By Farr

George Soros Exposed – Puppet master Glenn Beck

Obama Admin Evolution Of A Scandal – IRS Enemies List – Hannity

Targeted By The Taxman – He Made Us Do It! RPT: IRS Worker Names ATT”Y Carter Hull

Reality Check: IRS Scandal Exclusive

Heads are starting to roll at the IRS. Ben is following a story that is going in many directions. With many who are distancing themselves. In fact, He first told

FreedomWorks On Tap “The IRS Tax Terror” 5-16-13

Former IRS Chief’s Wife Works for Leftist Campaign Finance Reform Group

On Friday, reports broke that Former IRS chief Doug Shulman’s wife works with a liberal lobbying group, Public Campaign, where she is the senior program advisor. Public Campaign is an “organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.”

The goal of Public Campaign is to target political groups like the conservative non-profits at issue in the IRS scandal. The Campaign says it “is laying the foundation for reform by working with a broad range of organizations, including local community groups, around the country that are fighting for change and national organizations whose members are not fairly represented under the current campaign finance system.”

CEO of Public Campaign Nick Nyhart has offered words of support for the IRS’ targeting: “There are legitimate questions to be asked about political groups that are hiding behind a 501(c)4 status. It’s unfortunate a few bad apples at the IRS will make it harder for those questions to be asked without claims of bias.”

Public Campaign gets its cash from labor unions like AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and Move On.

George Soros Gives $1 Million To Barack Obama Super PAC

The Huffington Post | By Paul Blumenthal

The Democrats heavy-hitters are finally coming out of the dugout to play ball in the brave new world of unlimited contributions and super PACs.

A spokesperson for Priorities USA Action, the super PAC backing President Barack Obama’s reelection, confirmed to The Huffington Post Thursday that billionaire investor George Soros has committed $1 million to the PAC. A spokesman for House Majority PAC also confirmed to HuffPost that Soros had given a combined $500,000 to House Majority PAC and the Senate Majority PAC in September.

The New York Times’ Nick Confessore was first to publish the news about the Soros donations. According to Confessore, Soros’ political adviser Michael Vachon announced the contributions at a meeting of the liberal donor group, Democracy Alliance where former President Bill Clinton, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) were urging donors — most of whom have refused until now — to give to super PACs. Aside from the Soros donations, another $10 million was promised by donors attending the meeting.

Confessore writes that Soros, who did not attend the meeting, sent an email to Democracy Alliance members explaining his contributions:

“I fully support the re-election of President Obama,” Mr. Soros said in the email. He had not contributed until now, he wrote, because he opposed the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010, which paved the way for super PACs and unlimited money in politics. But since then, Mr. Soros wrote, he had become “appalled by the Romney campaign which is openly soliciting the money of the rich to starve the state of the money it needs to provide social services.”

It’s a sharp contrast to where Soros stood shortly after the 2010 midterm elections, when he expressed criticism of the Obama administration before a group of donors at a private meeting and suggested they pledge their money elsewhere.

Soros already has given $1.275 million to super PACs, the majority of which went to the Democratic opposition research hub American Bridge. His announced contributions this election still come nowhere near the amount that he gave to try to unseat President George W. Bush in 2004. Soros donated more than $30 million in that election — a record sum until international casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson dropped more than $70 million this year into a host of super PACs and non-disclosing non-profits.

George Soros: His Influence on the Media and the IRS Scandal

Soros’ Hand in the IRS Scandal

By Russ Jones

New details regarding the IRS scandal that found the nation’s top tax office intentionally targeting conservative groups are surfacing. Like, for example, the fact that George Soros-funded organizations sent letters encouraging the IRS to investigate conservative organizations.

According to findings reported by the Media Research Center (MRC), Soros gave $6.1 million to liberal groups who urged the Internal Revenue Service to investigate conservative non-profit organizations, including various tea party and Christian groups.

Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture for MRC, says the scandal could be traced to a series of letters that two liberal groups — Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Democracy 21 — sent to the IRS in 2010 and 2011 asking for an “investigation” of political consultant Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS.

“What they need to focus on is this timeline,” Gainor suggests. “We actually carry the timeline here, and the timeline is when these lefty operations sent their letters to the IRS and what the IRS did soon after.”

Pro Publica,The Huffington Post and Mother Jones were just a few of the accomplices that helped instigate IRS investigations. But as of 2010, Pro Publica received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

“It is a who’s who of far-left organizations,” the MRC spokesman offers. “Remember — this is George Soros, who has given $8.5 billion to charity. Of that … that we could track, $550 million has gone to liberal operations here in the United States.”

Applications of nine organizations applying for tax-exempt status that had yet to be approved were sent to Pro Publica. Unapproved applications are not supposed to be made public.

While the first reported instances of extra IRS scrutiny for conservative groups began in Cincinnati in March of 2010, the attacks began to pick up steam on a national level soon after Soros-funded groups began firing off letters to the IRS in October of that year – following the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

The talking points of these groups then bounced around a carefully created progressive “echo chamber,” until they eventually made their way into established media outlets. Key IRS policy changes about how it investigated conservative groups took place soon after it received three separate letters sent by Soros-funded liberal organizations.

Several Soros-funded groups including the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, the Center for Public Integrity, Mother Jones and Alternet have worked to pressure the IRS to target conservative nonprofit groups. The subsequent IRS investigation flagged more than 100 tea party-related applications for higher scrutiny, including applications that included the words “Tea Party” and “patriot.”

The IRS scandal can be traced back to a series of letters that the liberal groups Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Democracy 21 sent to the IRS back in 2010 and 2011. Both groups were funded by George’s Soros’s Open Society Foundations. The CLC received $677,000 and Democracy 21 got $365,000 from the Soros-backed foundation, according to the Foundation’s 990 tax forms.

The letters specifically targeted conservative Super PACs like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, asking the IRS to scrutinize them more thoroughly to determine whether or not they should retain their tax-exempt status.

On Oct. 5, 2010, when the first letter was sent to the IRS, calling specifically for the agency to “investigate” Crossroads GPS. The letter claimed Crossroads was “impermissibly using its tax status to spend tens of millions of dollars in the 2010 congressional races while hiding the donors funding these expenditures from the American people.” Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer wrote a blog post for the liberal Huffington Post to promote it, and the effort to get the media to notice the anti-conservative campaign began.

On June 27, 2011, a second letter by the CLC and Democracy 21 complained about enforcement of 501(c)(4) tax regulations, asking “that the IRS issue new regulations that better enforce the law.” Two days later, an IRS senior agency official was briefed on a new policy targeting groups which “criticize how the country is being run,” according to a Washington Post story. According to the Post, this policy was later revised.

A third letter by the CLC and Democracy 21, on Sept 28, 2011, got media traction. The letter showed the escalation of the left’s complaint about 501(c)(4) groups. It challenged “the eligibility of four organizations engaged in campaign activity to be treated as 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations.” The four organizations included Crossroads GPS, Priorities USA, American Action Network and Americans Elect.

The Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity ($2,716,328) published a “study” on 501(c)(4) groups, on October 31, which drew heavily from, and referenced, the CLC and Democracy 21. The Center for Public Integrity has strong media connections and boasts an advisory board that includes Ben Sherwood, president of ABC News, and Michele Norris, an NPR host, as well as a board of directors with such prominent names as Huffington Post CEO Arianna Huffington, Steve Kroft of CBS News’s 60 Minutes and Craig Newmark (founder of Craigslist).

This study then led to a Mother Jones article about a month later, on November 18, which was reposted on the left-wing blog Alternet on November 21. By December of 2011, the topic had been picked up in a New York Times editorial, and then began receiving other media coverage. That editorial called for “the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on the secret political money already flooding the 2012 campaign from partisan operatives ludicrously claiming to be ‘social welfare’ activists.”

On Jan. 15, 2012, the IRS targeted groups focused on limiting government or educating people about the Constitution and Bill of Rights

Alternet and Mother Jones are both members of The Media Consortium, which is designed to do exactly what happened here. The Media Consortium was created to be a progressive “echo chamber,” where 63 separate left-wing media outlets can network and share ideas, as well as cross-promote stories. Other members of the Consortium include such liberal outlets as The Nation,Democracy Now! and The American Prospect. The consortium has also received $675,000 in Soros funds since 2000. Alternet ($285,000) and Mother Jones ($485,000) have both also received individual funding from Soros’s Open Society Foundations.

This isn’t the only time the IRS has targeted conservative groups recently, nor is it the only connection between the IRS and Soros-funded groups. The IRS gave the left-wing journalism site ProPublica the applications for nine conservative groups pending tax-exempt status.

The IRS also released the confidential donor lists of the National Organization for Marriage to the liberal Human Rights Campaign. Both the Human Rights Campaign ($2,716,328) and ProPublica ($300,000) are also Soros-funded. Despite its blatant liberal leanings, ProPublica boasts a staff of well-known journalists, including veterans of The New York Times and The Wall Street journal, as well as of liberal operations like the Center for American Progress and The Nation, and has even won two Pulitzer Prizes.

Timeline Shows Influence of Soros-Funded Groups:

March 1-17, 2010: First ten reported cases of targeting by the IRS against groups that had ties to the “tea party or similar organizations.”

By MARK HEMINGWAY

After the IRS revealed it had wrongly targeted hundreds of conservative and Tea Party groups, the agency claimed that the misconduct was limited to “low-level employees” in its Cincinnati office. Yesterday, the attorney for Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS’s tax-exempt organizations division, told the House Oversight Committee she would invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, making that explanation much less credible.

Now the local Cincinnati Fox affiliate, FOX19, has done some digging and uncovered information suggesting that top officials at the IRS weren’t too far removed from the six low-level employees identified as making unjustified inquiries. Fox19 has not only identified all six IRS agents in question, it turns out that they all have only one supervisor in common:

When an application for tax exempt status comes into the IRS, agents have 270 days to work through that application. If the application is not processed within those 270 days it automatically triggers flags in the system. When that happens, individual agents are required to input a status update on that individual case once a month, every month until the case is resolved. …

So who in the chain of command would have received all these flags? The answer, according to the IRS directory, one woman in Cincinnati, Cindy Thomas, the Program Manager of the Tax Exempt Division. Because all six of our IRS workers have different individual and territory managers, Cindy Thomas is one manager they all have common.

Cindy Thomas’s name is significant, because Thomas is the woman who leaked nine tax documents to the journalism outlet ProPublica last year. The leaking of pending tax documents is a clear violation of the law. After having uncovered the nature of Thomas’s involvement, FOX19 looks at her place in the IRS chain of command:

Former Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller… retires

Joseph Grant, Commissioner of Tax Exempt and Government Entities… retires.

Lois Lerner, Head of Exempt Organization…says she will invoke her 5th amendment right to not incriminate herself when called before Congress on Wednesday.

Holly Paz, Director of Exempt Organizations, subpoenaed to Washington to be interviewed by members of Congress.

All of this IRS leadership, in Washington D.C.

Then one level down is Cindy Thomas, the highest ranking employee in Cincinnati in this Tax Exempt and Government Entities Department that no one in Congress is talking to… yet.

Cracks Widen In The IRS Scandal Stonewall

Scandal Watch: New evidence makes it clear that the Internal Revenue Service campaign against conservatives wasn’t the result of two “rogue” agents, but was directed from higher up. The question is, how high up?

The claim that a couple of workers in the bowels of an IRS office in Cincinnati managed to block tax-exempt applications from conservative groups for more than two years, while subjecting them to outrageous, intrusive and improper requests for information, started falling apart days ago.

Last weekend, the Washington Post quoted a staffer saying that “everything comes from the top” at the IRS.

As Colleen Kelley, president of the union that represents IRS agents, told the Associated Press, “No processes or procedures or anything like that would ever be done just by frontline employees without any management involvement.”

And the New York Times reported that IRS accountants got a “directive from their manager” in early 2010 to “be on the lookout” for Tea Party-type groups.

This week, NBC News quoted a former manager of that Cincinnati office who explained how various internal checks and balances would have prevented workers from carrying out such a scheme on their own.

And Cincinnati’s Fox 19 News, which has done more solid reporting on this story than most of the major news outlets, looks to have put the final nail in the “rogue agent” story.

The local news station found that there were six agents — not two as former IRS head Steven Miller insisted just last week — who worked on these tax-exempt applications. These agents, Fox 19 learned, all had different direct managers, who in turn had different territory managers.

That means any directive applying to all these workers would had to have come from at least three levels up the management chain.

That manager turns out to be Cindy Thomas — who the IRS says oversees “exempt organization determinations” nationwide. She also happens to be the same person who ProPublica said signed off on releasing nine confidential tax-exempt applications from conservative groups to that liberal-leaning news website.

So if Thomas ordered the targeting, why? And if someone told her to get it done, who was that?

Fox 19 also learned all these managers would have known that Tea Party applications were being blocked long ago. IRS agents must handle tax-exempt applications within 270 days, after which the system automatically sends out an alert, making the agent provide a status update each month until the case is resolved.

Since the IRS started blocking Tea Party-type applications in April 2010 and didn’t approve a single one for more than two years, “thousands of red flags would have been generated.” Given the 270-day schedule, the first alerts would have hit back in December 2010.

Given all this, it’s not surprising that one top IRS official is now pleading the Fifth, and that the IRS is stonewalling congressional requests for communications relating to the targeting, including crucial emails.

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

By Jeffrey Lord

Yesterday I asked in this space, among other questions about the IRS scandal, this:

What was the subject of the Obama-Kelley March 31, 2010 meeting?

I received the following response to my question from the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) — the union for IRS employees headed by ex-14 year agent Colleen Kelley. The response came from union spokesperson Dina Long. It reads, in its entirety, this:

Statement of NTEU

On March 31, 2010, NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley attended the White House Forum on Workplace Flexibility at the Old Executive Office Building. The forum was attended by approximately 200 attendees including business leaders, workers, policy experts and labor representatives discussing telework and worklife balance issues. Attendees were broken into five groups to discuss workplace issues. The president made opening remarks. President Kelley did not have any direct contact with the president or the first lady. President Kelley has never discussed the tea party with the president.

Below is a description of the March 2010 forum from the White House web site:

On March 31, 2010, President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama and the White House Council on Women and Girls hosted the White House Forum on Workplace Flexibility. The Forum brought together small business owners, corporate leaders, workers, policy experts, and labor leaders to explore the importance of creating workplace practices that allow America’s working men and women to meet the demands of their jobs without sacrificing the needs of their families. Building on the momentum coming out of that forum, the Administration is hosting follow-up forums around the country and encourages others to convene events in their communities to engage in dialogue and take action on this important issue.”

Sounds reasonable, yes?

Read again. Let’s see how the Washington game is played.

Over here, in a story by the Daily Caller’s Caroline May, the NTEU responded to Ms. May with the exact same statement that was sent to me.

With one difference. This interesting sentence:

President Kelley has never discussed the tea party with the president.

The folks over at the Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson’s site, are no dummies. If that sentence had been included in the otherwise identical response they received from the NTEU, they would have reported it.

So why was that one particular sentence tacked on to the otherwise identical statement from the NTEU? In a response to me?

Because in fact it is an answer — a disturbingly partial answer — to but one question of eight questions that I asked of Ms. Kelley. Let me share with you the exact email I sent to the NTEU for Colleen Kelley:

US News reports today the March 31, 2010 meeting mentioned in the article was a ” ‘Workplace Flexibility Forum,’ a March 2010 event that was about the state of flexible work arrangements.” I realize there are a number of questions here, but under the circumstances of this IRS controversy I want to make sure that Ms. Kelley has the opportunity to answer. I will be happy to publish her answers verbatim in The American Spectator.

Thanks,
Jeff Lord
The American Spectator

US News mentions that it has received no comment from Ms. Kelley. I would like to get a response from Ms. Kelley to the following questions:

• Did the President himself ever, at any time, discuss the Tea Party with Ms. Kelley?

• Did the President ever communicate his thoughts on the Tea Party to Kelley – in any fashion other than a face-to-face conversation such as e-mail, text or by phone?

• Was the Tea Party or any other group opposing the President’s agenda discussed at the March 31st meeting, or before or after that meeting?

• Will Ms. Kelley be asking the White House to release any e-mails, text or phone records that detail Kelley’s contacts with not only Mr. Obama but his staff? Will Ms. Kelley release any of these communications that are in the files of NTEU?

• Will Ms. Kelley ask the IRS to release all e-mail, text or phone records between Kelley or any other leader of the NTEU with IRS employees? With the Oversight Board? IRS employees are federal employees paid with taxpayer dollars.

• Has Ms. Kelley ever been given access to IRS records of Tea Party cases? Has she ever discussed the Tea Party or any conservative organization with IRS employees at any level?

• What did Ms. Kelley discuss with the President or any White House or government official at the December 3, 2009 White House Christmas Party that she attended?

• What role did Executive Order 13522 play in the IRS investigations of the Tea Party and all these other conservative groups?

That would be eight questions for “President Kelley,” as she was called in the NTEU response.

The very first question was:

Did the President himself ever, at any time, discuss the Tea Party with Ms. Kelley?

To which the NTEU responded by simply tacking on the following single sentence to their boilerplate reply to the media:

President Kelley has never discussed the tea party with the president.

But the rest of it? The answers to questions two through eight?

Silence.

Silence from the official NTEU spokesperson Dina Long. Silence from Colleen Kelley herself.

There was no “I’ll get back to you further.” There was no “Give us some time, what’s your deadline?” There was just….silence.

Note as well that when contacted by the Washington Post last week, the NTEU’s Kelley was, in the words of the Post headline, “mum.” Wrote the Post:

So far, the National Treasury Employees Union, which generally is not shy with public comment, has next to nothing to say about that or anything else.

NTEU is working to get the facts but does not have any specifics at this time. Moreover, IRS employees are not permitted to discuss taxpayer cases. We cannot comment further at this time,” NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley said via e-mail.

A call to the NTEU office in Cincinnati resulted in a similar response: “We’ve been directed by national office. We have no comment.”

So what do we have here?

This.

A powerful labor union — the union that represents IRS employees — is displaying a pattern of refusing to answer questions. Other than the solitary statement to The American Spectator that “President Kelley has never discussed the tea party with the president.”

Beyond a generic, boilerplate answer to media inquiries, there is silence.

No answers about releasing union e-mails or phone records to or from the White House, the IRS or the IRS Oversight Board (on which board sits a former NTEU president) and no answers on all the rest.

But over here at the Washington Post, we have, buried in a story about the Cincinnati office of the IRS, this key phrase:

“Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”

Got that?

“Everything comes from the top.”

The top is where Colleen Kelley, the head of all those unionized IRS workers in Cincinnati, operates.

The top is the White House, the IRS offices in Washington, D.C., and the IRS Oversight Board.

The top is what makes it possible for the IRS union to have the run of the IRS, to get an Executive Order (# 13522) from the President to “allow employee and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters….”

The top is where Colleen Kelley goes to a White House Christmas party as the guest of President and Mrs. Obama — six days before that Executive Order 13522 is issued.

The top is where Colleen Kelley can be the head of the IRS union that gets its dues, its very survival money, from employees being paid by taxpayer dollars — and not have to answer questions about the details of her “collaboration” with the White House, the Obama-run IRS and the IRS Oversight Board.

And being at the top is what gives Ms. Kelley the belief that she can head an IRS public employees union — and do the old Nixon stonewall.

She isn’t the only one at the top busy stonewalling right now.

And as with Watergate, the place to get to the bottom of the top is Congress.

“My question is who is going to jail?”— House Speaker John Boehner on the IRS Scandal

The President couldn’t even bring himself to breathe a word of the truth.

He could fire some hapless Acting Commissioner, but last night Mr. Obama never came close to discussing that which must never be discussed.

The IRS?

It’s about a union: the National Treasury Employees Union. The NTEU. A left-wing union representing 150,000 employees in 31 separate government agencies, including the IRS. A union that not only endorsed President Obama for election and re-election, but a union whose current president, Colleen Kelly, was a 14-year IRS agent and now is both union president and Obama administration appointee (of which more in a moment).

It’s about 94% of NTEU union contributions going to Democrats in the Senate and House in 2012 — candidates who campaigned as vociferous opponents of the Tea Party.

And the recently released report from the Treasury Inspector General? You will not find a single reference to the NTEU. Whose members are both player and referee in the exploding controversy over the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

Which raises the obvious question: how many NTEU members were involved in the writing of the Inspector General’s report?

Even more to the point, what contact — what coordination — has the Obama White House had with their allies in the NTEU leadership as both the White House and the NTEU race to get on top of a scandal that is rapidly engulfing both?

Did I mention that the NTEU has no comment on all of this? And that when President Obama went in front of cameras to make his statement on the IRS scandal — he never once mentioned his very powerful union buddies that have the run of the IRS? Right down to the control of who gets a Blackberry? Literally.

Let’s first see how the IRS/NTEU game with the Tea Party and conservatives is played, shall we?

For the U.S. Senate:Total to Democrats: $156,750Total to Republicans: $1,000

For the U.S. House:Total to Democrats: $391,062Total to Republicans: $23,000

And the candidates on the receiving end of those IRS employee dollars? Yes indeed. They were candidates who were running flat out against the Tea Party, depicting Tea Party-supported candidates as dangerous, extremists, and crazies. Exhibiting exactly the anti-Tea Party antipathy on the campaign trail that has been revealed to be permeating the IRS.

No wonder. These Senate and House races were fueled in part by money donated by IRS employees.

Let’s take a look at specific races where the IRS employee money was involved.

• Wisconsin: One of those IRS employee-backed Senate candidates was Democrat Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, who in fact won her Senate race over ex-Republican Governor Tommy Thompson.

The NTEU, the union representing IRS employees, gave Baldwin $8,500. And what was Baldwin’s view of the Tea Party? If you check over here at the Midwest Values PAC, a left-wing political action committee set up by liberal Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, you will find this headline:

National Memo: Tammy Baldwin Runs Straight At The Tea Party

The story begins this way, and I have put the key sentence in bold print:

Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin wants to be the first openly gay candidate elected to the United States Senate. In an exclusive interview with The National Memo over the weekend, she made clear how she means to go about doing it: running straight at the Tea Party.

• Indiana: In the Indiana Senate race, the Democrats’ candidate was Joe Donnelly, who used his $5,000 contribution to run a winning anti-Tea Party race against Republican Richard Mourdock. Donnelly’s campaign website, presumably financed in part with the money contributed by IRS employees, has this headline attacking the Tea Party:

“Hoosier voters are rejecting Richard Mourdock’s pattern of TEA Party extreme positions, so he is desperate to change the subject,” said Paul Tencher, campaign manager. “In fact, Indiana voters are responding to Joe’s message of working with both parties to get things done for middle class families. The only person playing politics in this race is Mr. Mourdock, as he tries to distract voters from his extreme views that are out of the mainstream.”

• Missouri: Over in the Missouri Senate race between Democrat Claire McCaskill and Republican Todd Akin, the IRS employee money — in the form of a $10,000 contribution to McCaskill — was used by the McCaskill campaign to help send this e-mail to supporters that bluntly attacked the Tea Party as “dangerous”:

Akin’s Rap Sheet Makes It Clear: Tea Party Congressman’s Outside Of The Mainstream Views, Dangerous Policies Are Wrong for Missouri, From his record to his rhetoric, everything about Todd Akin’s Tea Party policies are outside of the mainstream and dangerous for Missouri families.

When Missouri Republicans nominated him last night, they pinned their Senate hopes on a far right, Tea Party Congressman whose candidacy diminishes the party’s prospects for November.

And over in House races? At the very top of the high dollar list were two vividly anti-Tea Party candidates who each received a $10,000 contribution of IRS employee dollars.

• House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: Pelosi’s strategy was made plain in this interview with liberal columnist Eleanor Clift of the Daily Beast:

Stung by the debt-deal loss, the minority leader plans to get Democrats back on their jobs message and hammer Tea Party lawmakers as extremists who want to destroy government.

• House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer: Hoyer famously attacked the Tea Party this way, as seen with this headline:

Hoyer: Tea Party People Come From Unhappy Families

“There are a whole lot of people in the Tea Party that I see in these polls who don’t want any compromise.My presumption is they have unhappy families.”

Understanding all of this — that IRS employees themselves are paying, through their union the NTEU, for the election of anti-Tea Party candidates — the absence of any mention whatsoever of the connection between the IRS and the NTEU puts the IG report in a very different light.

For example.

The IG report says — and I will bold print the key phrases — the following:

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary potentially involving information requests to be issued.

Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign

intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these

applications for 13 months. This was due to delays in receiving assistance from the Exempt Organizations function Headquarters office. For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to1,138 calendar days (some for more than three years and crossing two election cycles).

More than 20 months after the initial case was identified, processing the cases began in earnest. ….IRS officials stated that any donor information received in response to a request from its Determinations Unit was later destroyed.

Just in these opening statements of the IG report there is one very significant and glaring omission.

In each and every case these phrases identify actions taken by people — by IRS employees. IRS employees are members of the NTEU. The NTEU that is using money from these very same IRS employees to fund the campaigns of anti-Tea Party candidates like Baldwin, Donnelly, McCaskill, Pelosi and Hoyer. Not to mention all the rest of the Democrats who got a piece of the IRS employee money action.

As one would suspect, given the enormous clout of the liberal IRS union, it’s all about the politics. Liberal politics and the financing of the liberal welfare state. A federal version, if you will, of the recent famous struggle between Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and state employee unions.

How powerful is the NTEU within the IRS?

Look no further than this IG report from back in January of this year that discusses the role the union has inside the IRS bureaucracy in the minutia of which IRS employees get to carry a Blackberry. The report notes:

In June 2010, the IRS and the NTEU signed an agreement to standardize IRS policy regarding which IRS employees would be allowed (referred to as a “profiled” position in the agreement) to receive certain information technology equipment, including aircards and BlackBerry® smartphones.

Notice: the NTEU, which gave 94% of its campaign money to anti-Tea Party candidates, has the clout within the IRS to demand a say in who can and cannot carry a Blackberry and receive other high tech communications equipment. The report goes on to say:

Initially, IRS policy limited the assignment of BlackBerry® smartphones to executives and senior/departmental managers. However, the agreement between the IRS and the NTEU expanded availability to employees below the executive and senior/departmental level.

If you are working in the IRS, and you are an NTEU member, and you know your union leadership is funneling your union dues to anti-Tea Party candidates, and your union has so much raw power within the IRS that they even control whether you, an IRS employee, can get even such mundane tech gear as a Blackberry — what attitude are you going to display as you review Tea Party applications that must, by law, come in to the IRS for approval?

You already know what to do. And inside the IRS, that’s exactly what was done. The Tea Party, in the vernacular, was screwed. By IRS bureaucrats whose union money is being used to attack the Tea Party. Of course these IRS employees know what to do — most probably without even being asked. There is no need to ask. And if they don’t follow the union program — and want a Blackberry — tough luck.

And what of the NTEU president, Ms. Kelly? The one-time IRS agent also doubles as an Obama appointee (announced here by the Obama White House) to the Federal Salary Council. Identified in the Washington Post as:

…a panel obscure to most Washingtonians but one that performs a vital role in recommending raises for most federal employees.

Got that? The President of the NTEU — a union that has gone out of its way to use IRS employee money to defeat the Tea Party — has a “vital role in recommending raises for most federal employees” — which includes, of course, IRS employees.

As if IRS employees don’t have enough incentive to go after the Tea Party, their anti-Tea Party president has a say in whether they get not just a Blackberry but a raise as well.

Can you say: “conflict of interest”?

Let’s stop here and take a look at a famous incident with the IRS that has made news in the last few days: the Articles of Impeachment filed against President Richard Nixon.

By now, all manner of people have been reminded that President Nixon’s resignation was prompted by the House Judiciary Committee passing Articles of Impeachment, with Article 2, Section One specifically saying:

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

But there’s something missing in this recall of the tale of Nixon and the IRS.

In the early 1970s, President Nixon bypassed Congress and postponed salary increases for General Schedule federal employees. This included, of course, the IRS. The NTEU was furious with Nixon and took the President to court in a case called NTEU v. Nixon. The union won, and the federal government was forced to pay $533 million in back pay to federal employees.

So far, so normal in the world of Washington and relationships between a president and federal employees. Right?

Wrong.

Two years later, in 1974, the year the Watergate scandal reached high tide and Nixon was forced to resign, his abuse of the IRS cited in Article 2 as one of the reasons, there was another story out there involving the IRS and Richard Nixon.

As the liberal drive to get Nixon increased to the force of a political hurricane, reporter Jack White of Rhode Island’s Providence Journal-Evening Bulletin received an illegal leak — from the IRS. Specifically, an illegal leak from someone inside the IRS — an IRS employee — that leaked Richard Nixon’s 1970 and 1971 taxes. There was an immediate uproar — not about the leak or the identity of the leaker — but over the accusation that Nixon had underpaid his taxes. The House Judiciary Committee took the information and ran with it, opening an entire line of inquiry about Nixon’s tax deductions. So public was this it resulted in Nixon famously answering a question at a press conference this way:

People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook. I’ve earned everything I’ve got.

And while people are remembering Nixon in the current furor over the IRS because of his own abuse of the IRS and Article 2, there was another Article —Article 4 — that was based on the leaked information from the still-unknown IRS employee to reporter Jack White. Read Article 4:

He knowingly and fraudulently failed to report certain income and claimed deductions in the year 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972 on his Federal income tax returns which were not authorized by law, including deductions for a gift of papers to the United States valued at approximately $576,000.

Nixon vigorously disputed this, of course. But it didn’t matter. He was out the door, forced to resign. A leak from the IRS to the media about Nixon’s taxes one big no-never-mind.

And what happened to reporter Jack White? The man who received the illegal leak of Nixon’s tax returns — a violation of law — and published them?

Jack White was rewarded by his liberal media peers with the 1974 Pulitzer Prize in Journalism for National Reporting.

So.

What’s really going on with the IRS?

The Internal Revenue Service , with all of its mighty taxing and police powers, is in the hands of anti-Tea Party, anti-conservative, political activists. Liberal political activists from the NTEU masquerading as neutral career bureaucrats. The money of IRS employees used to fuel the National Treasury Employees Union’s open and expensive assault on the Tea Party and conservatives.

And comment on all this from the NTEU? Here’s this from the Washington Post:

So far, the National Treasury Employees Union, which generally is not shy with public comment, has next to nothing to say about that or anything else.

“NTEU is working to get the facts but does not have any specifics at this time. Moreover, IRS employees are not permitted to discuss taxpayer cases. We cannot comment further at this time,” NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley said via e-mail.

A call to the NTEU office in Cincinnati resulted in a similar response: “We’ve been directed by national office. We have no comment.”

No comment? No wonder.

“IRS employees are not permitted to discuss taxpayer cases”??!! What a joke.

Here in the Wall Street Journal is author James Bovard with a short history of the political manipulation of the IRS by various presidents, and Bovard notes that: “With the current IRS scandal, we may have seen only the tip of the iceberg.”

Aside from Nixon they include FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton. The difference is the latter three weren’t forced to resign because of it — and Clinton’s abuse of the IRS was not include in the Articles of Impeachment that focused on his lying to a grand jury over that liberal favorite — sexual harassment.

The real question now?

With the IRS assuming serious police powers of Obamacare, in effect the members of one left-wing labor union will have access to the private health care records of every single American.

And notes the Wall Street Journal, again the bold print for emphasis:

This March the IRS Inspector General reiterated that ObamaCare’s 47 major changes to the revenue code “represent the largest set of tax law changes the IRS has had to implement in more than 20 years.” Thus the IRS is playing Thelma to the Health and Human Service Department’s Louise. The tax agency has requested funding for 1,954 full-time equivalent employees for its Affordable Care Act office in 2014.

Got that? The real meaning here is that the NTEU is asking for 1,954 more union members whose union dues will be put to use to “hammer the Tea Party” in the words of Nancy Pelosi.

As James Taranto also noted over in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:

The Internal Revenue Service last year supplied a left-leaning nonprofit charity with confidential information about conservative organizations, which the charity disseminated to the public, ProPublica reported yesterday.

Once again, IRS employees — they of the anti-Tea Party union NTEU — were caught leaking private information.

Did I mention they were targeting Billy Graham — 95 year old Billy Graham??!!! Why? Because the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association was urging “voters to back ‘candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles….’”

You know what terrifies every liberal in America right now? You want to know the real reason President Obama abruptly felt the need to go on national television last night and fire the Acting Commissioner of the IRS last night as Americans were having their dinner?

The distinct possibility that the IRS and the whole confection of Big Government liberalism built around the federal taxing power is about to implode in scandal.

Big scandal. The kind of scandal that will make Watergate look like a piker.

And the irony?

That in seeking to destroy the credibility of the Tea Party, the Obama administration and its allies have destroyed not just the credibility of the IRS and one very seriously powerful union.

IRS’s Shulman had more public White House visits than any Cabinet member

Publicly released records show that embattled former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House at least 157 times during the Obama administration, more recorded visits than even the most trusted members of the president’s Cabinet.

Obama officials who’ve visited the White House (As prepared by The Daily Caller)

Shulman’s extensive access to the White House first came to light during his testimony last week before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Shulman gave assorted answers when asked why he had visited the White House 118 times during the period that the IRS was targeting tea party and conservative nonprofits for extra scrutiny and delays on their tax-exempt applications.

By contrast, Shulman’s predecessor Mark Everson only visited the White House once during four years of service in the George W. Bush administration and compared the IRS’s remoteness from the president to “Siberia.” But the scope of Shulman’s White House visits — which strongly suggests coordination by White House officials in the campaign against the president’s political opponents — is even more striking in comparison to the publicly recorded access of Cabinet members.

An analysis by The Daily Caller of the White House’s public “visitor access records” showed that every current and former member of President Obama’s Cabinet would have had to rack up at least 60 more public visits to the president’s home to catch up with “Douglas Shulman.”

The visitor logs do not give a complete picture of White House access. Some high-level officials get cleared for access and do not have to sign in during visits. A Washington Post database of visitor log records cautions, “The log may include some scheduled visits that did not take place and exclude visits by members of Congress, top officials and others who are not required to sign in at security gates.”

The White House press office declined to comment on which visits by high-ranking officials do and do not get recorded in the visitor log, but it is probable that the vast majority of visits by major Cabinet members do not end up in the public record.

Nevertheless, many visits by current and former Cabinet members are in the logs, and the record depicts an IRS chief uniquely at home in the White House.

Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama’s friend and loyal lieutenant, logged 62 publicly known White House visits, not even half as many as Shulman’s 157.

Former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, to whom Shulman reported, clocked in at just 48 publicly known visits.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earned a cool 43 public visits, and current Secretary of State John Kerry logged 49 known White House visits in the same timeframe, when he was still a U.S. senator.

IRS Crosses Green Line

Pro-Israel groups felt wrath of Obama IRS, WFB investigation reveals

BY: Alana Goodman

A Washington Free Beacon investigation has identified at least five pro-Israel organizations that have been audited by the IRS in the wake of a coordinated campaign by White House-allied activist groups in 2009 and 2010.

These organizations, some of which are too afraid of government reprisals to speak publicly, say in interviews with the Free Beacon thatthey now believe the IRS actions may have been coordinated by the Obama administration.

Many of the charities openly clashed with the Obama administration’s policy of opposing Israeli settlement construction over the so-called “Green Line,” which marks the pre-1967 boundary between Israel and the West Bank and West and East Jerusalem.

After the Obama administration took up the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as one of its most prominent foreign policy priorities in early 2009, and made a cessation of Israeli settlement construction the cornerstone of its approach, the nonprofits were subjected to a string of unflattering media reports.

White House-allied lobbying groups joined the media criticism by challenged the nonprofits’ tax-exempt status, arguing that they undercut President Barack Obama’s Middle East policies.

“Our concern at that time was that these articles weren’t just appearing by happenstance, but may have reflected an evolving policy shift in the Obama administration to scrutinize charitable giving by organizations on behalf of Jewish communities and institutions over the Green Line,” said Jerusalem-based attorney Marc Zell, who convened a private meeting of pro-Israel groups in August 2009 to discuss these concerns.

Tax-exempt charities that support Israeli settlements have been the subject of controversy for years. But the issue came to a head after Obama made opposition to settlement construction a focus of his Middle East policy in 2009 and demanded Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu halt all construction beyond the Green Line, including in the Israeli capital of Jerusalem.

While it is not illegal for these charities to contribute to groups and individuals across the Green Line, critics say that they should not receive tax-exempt status because they support communities the administration views as antagonistic to administration policy.

The media scrutiny began as early as March 26, 2009, when the Washington Post’s David Ignatius published a column questioning the groups’ tax-exempt status.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) announced the next day that it would begin a campaign of filing legal complaints with the IRS and the Treasury Department to investigate groups “allegedly raising funds for the development of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.”

ADC is closely tied to the Obama White House. The president recorded a video greeting to the group’s annual conference and sent two senior administration officials to attend.

The ADC announced in October 2009 that it had expanded its legal campaign against pro-Israel charities and was “working with a number of coalition partners, both nationally and internationally, in conducting this ongoing campaign.”

The chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority raised the issue two days later during a meeting with U.S. Consul General Daniel Rubenstein, according to a State Department cable revealed by Wikileaks.

“[Palestinian negotiator Ahmad Quraya] gave the Consul General a copy of an article by Uri Blau and Nir Hasson, published in Israeli daily Haaretz newspaper on August 17, entitled ‘American Non-profit Organization Raises Funds for Settlement,’ and asked the USG to review the situation with an eye toward eliminating organizations’ tax exempt status if they are funding settlement activity,” said the cable.

On July 5, 2010, the New York Times published its 5,000-word cover story on the groups, following up with a Room for Debate series two days later. The article quoted an unnamed senior State Department administration official calling such groups “a problem” and “unhelpful to the efforts that we’re trying to make.” The story also quoted a senior Obama Middle East adviser, Daniel Kurtzer, saying the groups “drove us crazy.”

J Street, a pro-Palestinian lobbying group that was closely aligned with the White House in 2009 and 2010, called the following week for an investigation into U.S. charities that contribute to settlements.

One pro-Israel targets was HaYovel, which was featured prominently in the New York Times article. Six months after the article was published, the IRS audited the Nashville-based charity, which sends volunteers to work in vineyards across the Green Line.

“We bookend that [New York Times] story. We were the first [group mentioned]. They really kind of focused on us,” said HaYovel’s founder Tommy Waller. “Then six months later we had an audit.”

Shari Waller, who cofounded HaYovel with her husband, said the couple received a phone call from the IRS in December 2010. She said she was not aware of anything in their tax documents that may have prompted the audit, and added that the additional scrutiny came during the group’s first five years of existence when audits tend to be rare.

“They contacted us the week of Christmas and told us they wanted to audit us, right now,” she said. “The most unusual thing to me was they contacted us at a time [that] for most people is a very hectic time, and we had just returned from Israel. To think about taking calls for an audit on the telephone—official business is usually conducted through the mail.”

Tommy Waller said he found the timing of the audit “suspicious” and believes it may have been politically motivated.

“We 100-percent support Judea and Samaria, and Jewish sovereignty in that area, and the current administration is 100 percent opposed to Jewish sovereignty in that area of Israel,” he said. “That’s why we suspected that we would have to deal with [an audit].”

Two other organizations—the American arm of an educational institution that operates across the Green Line and the American arm of a well-known Israeli charity that was mentioned in the New York Times article—say they were also audited.

Another organization that was criticized in multiple articles during 2009 and 2010 was audited last year. The organization, like many of the groups with whom the Free Beacon spoke, asked to remain anonymous out of fear of political retaliation and concern that exposure would harm fundraising efforts.

“The IRS carried out an examination of our organization, reviewing all of our accounting records, tax returns, bylaws, bank records, grant awards, etc, for the relevant period,” said a senior official of this organization.

“There was no vindictiveness in the audit itself and it was completed within a matter of months. Our feeling at the time was that this order must have come from above. The IRS seemed to be responding to a request or a complaint from higher up.”

Concerns that the IRS was targeting pro-Israel groups were first raised publicly by Z Street, a pro-Israel organization run by Lori Lowenthal Marcus.

Z Street filed a lawsuit against the IRS in 2010, alleging its application for tax-exempt status was delayed because it disagreed with the Obama administration’s Israel policy.

According to the suit, Marcus’s attorney was informed by IRS official Diane Gentry that Z Street’s “application for tax-exempt status has been at least delayed, and may be denied because of a special IRS policy in place regarding organizations in any way connected with Israel, and further that the applications of many such Israel-related organizations have been assigned to “a special unit in the D.C. office.”

Neither the IRS nor Gentry responded to a request for comment.

Marcus said Z Street has not funded anyone or any groups in the settlements. But, she added, the problems her organization faced could be related to the administration’s concerns over settlement-supporting groups.

Z Street’s application for tax-exempt status first ran into trouble with the IRS on July 19, 2010, two weeks after the lengthy New York Times article was published.

“Even if that is the case, that’s an explanation, but it’s not an answer. It’s not an adequate reason,” said Marcus. “It’s totally inappropriate.”

Zell told the Free Beacon he has not personally witnessed a shift in IRS policy since the 2009 meeting suggesting settlement-supporting nonprofits have been targeted.

However, he said it is a “yellow flag” that at least five of these organizations have been audited since 2009, considering the recent finding by the IRS inspector general that the agency targeted conservative groups.

“Now with the revelations of the IRS abuses vis-a-vis U.S. right-wing organizations, that have been published of late, there is renewed concerned that these kinds of policies, same kinds of policies and procedures, may have been targeted at these organizations [that support settlements],” he said.

Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett

Valerie B. Jarrett is a Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama. She oversees the Offices of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs and chairs the White House Council on Women and Girls.

Prior to joining the Obama Administration, she was the Chief Executive Officer of The Habitat Company. She also served as Co-Chair of the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team, and Senior Advisor to Obama’s presidential campaign.

Ms. Jarrett has held positions in both the public and private sector, including the Chairman of the Chicago Transit Board, the Commissioner of Planning and Development for the City of Chicago, and Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard M. Daley. She also practiced law with two private law firms.

Jarrett also served as a director of corporate and not for profit boards, including Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Stock Exchange, Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and Chairman of the University of Chicago Medical Center Board of Trustees.

Jarrett received her B.A. from Stanford University in 1978 and her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1981.

Gun Control Fight Shows Signs Of Splitting The Democratic Coalition

The so called “gun show loophole” does not exist (I set the record straight)

Sore Loser – Sen. Feinstein After Losing Gun legislation states there will be no background checks

Megyn Kelly Panel Gun Control Argument & Debate after Shooting

Senate defeats Obama’s gun grabbing agenda

By Raymond Thomas Pronk

President Barack Obama and progressive liberals of the Democratic and Republican parties are once again attempting to infringe upon the Second Amendment Constitutional rights of the American people to keep and bear arms.

The progressive gun grabbers recognize that under Article V of the Constitution they do not have the necessary two-thirds of both Houses needed to propose an Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment nor do the gun grabbers have the necessary three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify such an amendment.

Instead the gun grabbers propose laws that would infringe upon law-abiding American citizens in defending and protecting themselves against criminals, drug dealers, the dangerously deranged and tyrants.

In March Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) at a Senate Judiciary committee hearing on her amendment to reinstate the ban on “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines, said: “The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices — those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”

First, murder is a crime in all 50 states. Second, criminals, drug dealers and the dangerously deranged will use their weapons and magazines of choice, usually handguns not rifles, no matter what the federal or state laws ban. Restricting law-abiding citizens’ choice of weapons and magazine capacity would place them at an immediate disadvantage. Third, the so-called “assault weapons” that Feinstein would again ban includes semi-automatic rifles that most Americans use for hunting and sport shooting.

As John Lott, author of the books “More Guns, Less Crime” and “”The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong” points out, “When the federal assault weapons ban ended on Sept. 13, 2004, gun crimes and police killings were predicted to surge. Instead, they have declined.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on the floor of the Senate said, “On the anti-gun legislation before the Senate, we are making good progress on the effort to schedule a series of votes on amendments to the anti-gun violence legislation before the Senate.”

On April 17 Obama’s progressive gun-grabbing agenda was handed a major defeat. The Feinstein “assault weapons” ban was defeated in a bipartisan Senate vote of 60-40. An amendment to expand background checks also failed in a bipartisan vote of 54-46. The defeated amendment would have expanded background checks to cover all firearms sales at gun shows and over the Internet. However, the amendment would have exempted sales between friends and acquaintances outside of commercial venues.

The National Rifle Association’s chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said, “This amendment would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution.”

Under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOP), the vast majority of gun sales at gun shows and over the Internet involve a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer that is required under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) to run a criminal background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI prior to transferring the firearm to the purchaser.

Only unlicensed private party sellers such as gun collectors and occasional sellers who sell firearms at such shows are exempt from running a background check. This is the so-called “gun show loophole” that the gun grabbers want to close. However, even under existing law, if the private seller believes that the purchaser could not pass a background check, it is illegal to sell the firearm.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz pointed out, “Why is all this focus directed at background checks? The reason is because the Department of Justice has said the only way to implement what they want–universal background checks — is a registry, a federal list of every gun owner in America. And that would be wrong; it’d be unconstitutional.”

The American people through their elected representatives in Congress will peacefully resist any attempt by progressive liberals to infringe upon their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in order to defend and protect their lives and property from criminals, predators, the dangerously deranged and tyrants.

Ever since Obama was elected president in 2008 and re-elected in 2012, gun and ammunition sales across the country are breaking sales records and the number of criminal background checks is soaring. The American people no longer trust their political leaders for they believe the gun grabbers’ real aim through federal anti-gun laws is to eventually repeal the Second Amendment.

As Richard Feldman said in his April 18 speech to Richland College students, progress in the gun debate will not be made until the focus shifts from controlling guns to controlling gun violence and this requires the political leaders to trust the people and the people in turn to trust their political leaders.

Richard Feldman was interviewed on the April 19 Pronk Pops Show presented by Raymond Thomas Pronk on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Fridays and author of the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com/.

Christopher Stevens US ambassador to Libya killed: HD Video

Obama Administration Denies CIA in Benghazi Requested Help (10/26/12)

Major General Bob Scales: White House Should Have Taken Action in Benghazi (10/26/12)

Retired Major General Bob Scales believes, the White House should have taken action to go after the terrorists in Benghazi on 9/11/12. TWO U.S. drones were flying overhead, giving the White House all the info needed, which made the “fog of war” a minimum concern, and help for the CIA agents and U.S. Ambassador was less than 2 hours away. The siege lasted for 7 hours, making a rescue very possible for at least 2 CIA agents. Repeated calls for help, by the CIA agents, only met with a “request denied” with each call.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Current Numbers:

2nd quarter 2012: 1.3 percent

1st quarter 2012: 2.0 percent

Quarterly data: Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of 2012 (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the “third” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.

National Income and Product Accounts

Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2012 (third estimate);

Corporate Profits: Second Quarter 2012 (revised estimate)

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of 2012
(that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "third" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.
The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "second" estimate issued last month. In the second estimate, the increase in real GDP was 1.7
percent (see "Revisions" on page 3).
The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed investment, and residential
fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from private inventory investment and
state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP,
increased.
The deceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected decelerations in PCE, in
nonresidential fixed investment, and in residential fixed investment that were partly offset by smaller
decreases in federal government spending and in state and local government spending and an
acceleration in exports.
Motor vehicle output added 0.20 percentage point to the second-quarter change in real GDP after
adding 0.72 percentage point to the first-quarter change. Final sales of computers subtracted 0.10
percentage point from the second-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.02 percentage point to the
first-quarter change.
__________
FOOTNOTE. Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates. Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. "Real" estimates are in chained (2005)
dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures.
This news release is available on BEA’s Web site along with the Technical Note and Highlights related to this release.
For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components."
__________
The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 0.7 percent in the second quarter, 0.1 percentage point less than the second estimate; this index
increased 2.5 percent in the first quarter. Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross
domestic purchases increased 1.4 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 2.4
percent in the first.
Real personal consumption expenditures increased 1.5 percent in the second quarter, compared
with an increase of 2.4 percent in the first. Durable goods decreased 0.2 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 11.5 percent. Nondurable goods increased 0.6 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6
percent. Services increased 2.1 percent, compared with an increase of 1.3 percent.
Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 3.6 percent in the second quarter, compared with
an increase of 7.5 percent in the first. Nonresidential structures increased 0.6 percent, compared with an
increase of 12.9 percent. Equipment and software increased 4.8 percent, compared with an increase of
5.4 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 8.5 percent, compared with an increase of 20.5
percent.
Real exports of goods and services increased 5.3 percent in the second quarter, compared with an
increase of 4.4 percent in the first. Real imports of goods and services increased 2.8 percent, compared
with an increase of 3.1 percent.
Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.2 percent
in the second quarter, compared with a decrease of 4.2 percent in the first. National defense decreased
0.2 percent, compared with a decrease of 7.1 percent. Nondefense decreased 0.4 percent, in contrast to
an increase of 1.8 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment decreased 1.0 percent, compared with a decrease of 2.2 percent.
The change in real private inventories subtracted 0.46 percentage point from the second-quarter
change in real GDP, after subtracting 0.39 percentage point from the first-quarter change. Private
businesses increased inventories $41.4 billion in the second quarter, following increases of $56.9 billion
in the first quarter and $70.5 billion in the fourth.
Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.7
percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in the first.
Gross domestic purchases
Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 1.0 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.8 percent in the
first.
Gross national product
Real gross national product -- the goods and services produced by the labor and property
supplied by U.S. residents -- increased 2.1 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of
0.6 percent in the first. GNP includes, and GDP excludes, net receipts of income from the rest of the
world, which increased $27.4 billion in the second quarter after decreasing $44.1 billion in the first; in
the second quarter, receipts increased $3.5 billion, and payments decreased $24.0 billion.
Current-dollar GDP
Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
2.8 percent, or $107.3 billion, in the second quarter to a level of $15,585.6 billion. In the first quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 4.2 percent, or $157.3 billion.
Gross domestic income
Real gross domestic income (GDI), which measures the output of the economy as the costs
incurred and the incomes earned in the production of GDP, increased 0.2 percent in the second quarter,
compared with an increase of 3.8 percent in the first. For a given quarter, the estimates of GDP and GDI
may differ for a variety of reasons, including the incorporation of largely independent source data.
However, over longer time spans, the estimates of GDP and GDI tend to follow similar patterns of
change.
Revisions
The "third" estimate of the second-quarter percent change in real GDP is 0.4 percentage point, or
$16.0 billion, less than the "second" estimate issued last month, primarily reflecting downward revisions
to private inventory investment, to personal consumption expenditures, and to exports.
Advance Estimate Second Estimate Third Estimate
(Percent change from preceding quarter)
Real GDP............................... 1.5 1.7 1.3
Current-dollar GDP..................... 3.1 3.3 2.8
Gross domestic purchases price index... 0.7 0.8 0.7
Corporate Profits
Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital
consumption adjustments) increased $21.8 billion in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease of
$53.0 billion in the first quarter. Current-production cash flow (net cash flow with inventory valuation
adjustment) -- the internal funds available to corporations for investment -- increased $6.0 billion in the
second quarter, in contrast to a decrease of $169.8 billion in the first.
Taxes on corporate income decreased $10.3 billion in the second quarter, in contrast to an
increase of $83.2 billion in the first. Profits after tax with inventory valuation and capital consumption
adjustments increased $31.9 billion in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease of $136.2 billion in
the first. Dividends increased $20.4 billion, compared with an increase of $9.2 billion; current-
production undistributed profits increased $11.6 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $145.5 billion.
Domestic profits of financial corporations decreased $39.7 billion in the second quarter, compared
with a decrease of $12.3 billion in the first. Domestic profits of nonfinancial corporations increased
$27.8 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase of $7.3 billion in the first. In the second
quarter, real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations increased, and profits per unit of real value
added increased. The increase in unit profits reflected an increase in unit prices and a decrease in unit
nonlabor costs that were partly offset by an increase in unit labor costs.
The rest-of-the-world component of profits increased $33.6 billion in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $48.0 billion in the first. This measure is calculated as (1) receipts by U.S.
residents of earnings from their foreign affiliates plus dividends received by U.S. residents from
unaffiliated foreign corporations minus (2) payments by U.S. affiliates of earnings to their foreign
parents plus dividends paid by U.S. corporations to unaffiliated foreign residents. The second-quarter
increase was accounted for by an increase in receipts and a decrease in payments.
Profits before tax with inventory valuation adjustment is the best available measure of industry
profits because estimates of the capital consumption adjustment by industry do not exist. This measure
reflects depreciation-accounting practices used for federal income tax returns. According to this
measure, domestic profits of financial corporations decreased. The decrease in financial corporations
was primarily accounted for by a decrease in "other" financial industries. Domestic profits of
nonfinancial corporations increased, primarily reflecting increases in wholesale trade, in manufacturing,
and in information industries. Within manufacturing, the largest increases were in computer and
electronic products and in "other" durable goods.
Profits before tax decreased $16.3 billion in the second quarter, in contrast to an increase of
$188.1 billion in the first. The before-tax measure of profits does not reflect, as does profits from
current production, the capital consumption and inventory valuation adjustments. These adjustments
convert depreciation of fixed assets and inventory withdrawals reported on a tax-return, historical-cost
basis to the current-cost measures used in the national income and product accounts. The capital
consumption adjustment decreased $1.7 billion in the second quarter (from -$200.7 billion to -$202.4
billion), compared with a decrease of $230.3 billion in the first. The large decrease in the first-quarter
capital consumption adjustment mainly reflected the expiration of bonus depreciation claimed under the
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010. The inventory
valuation adjustment increased $39.7 billion (from -$23.7 billion to $16.0 billion), in contrast to a
decrease of $10.8 billion.
* * *
BEA’s national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.
* * *
Next release – October 26, 2012, at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2012 (Advance Estimate)
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Q2 GDP SLASHED TO 1.3%

“…The third reading on Q2 GDP just came out and the report was ugly.

The headline growth number was revised down to 1.3 percent on an annualized basis.

“The “third” estimate of the second-quarter percent change in real GDP is 0.4 percentage point, or $16.0 billion, less than the “second” estimate issued last month, primarily reflecting downward revisions to private inventory investment, to personal consumption expenditures, and to exports,” wrote the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The personal consumption component was revised down to 1.5 percent. Economists were expecting it to be unchanged at 1.7 percent. …”

Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of 2012 (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the “third” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.
The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the “second” estimate issued last month. In the second estimate, the increase in real GDP was 1.7 percent (see “Revisions” on page 3).
The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed investment, and residential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from private inventory investment and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.
The deceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected decelerations in PCE, in nonresidential fixed investment, and in residential fixed investment that were partly offset by smaller decreases in federal government spending and in state and local government spending and an acceleration in exports.
Motor vehicle output added 0.20 percentage point to the second-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.72 percentage point to the first-quarter change. Final sales of computers subtracted 0.10 percentage point from the second-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.02 percentage point to the first-quarter change.

“…U.S. Real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of 2012 (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the “third” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.

The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed investment, and residential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from private inventory investment and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.
The deceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected decelerations in PCE, in nonresidential fixed investment, and in residential fixed investment that were partly offset by smaller decreases in federal government spending and in state and local government spending and an acceleration in exports.
Motor vehicle output added 0.20 percentage point to the second-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.72 percentage point to the first-quarter change. Final sales of computers subtracted 0.10 percentage point from the second-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.02 percentage point to the first-quarter change.
Real personal consumption expenditures increased 1.5 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in the first. Durable goods decreased 0.2 percent, in contrast to an increase of 11.5 percent. Nondurable goods increased 0.6 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent. Services increased 2.1 percent, compared with an increase of 1.3 percent.
Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 3.6 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 7.5 percent in the first. Nonresidential structures increased 0.6 percent, compared with an increase of 12.9 percent. Equipment and software increased 4.8 percent, compared with an increase of 5.4 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 8.5 percent, compared with an increase of 20.5 percent.
Real exports of goods and services increased 5.3 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 4.4 percent in the first. Real imports of goods and services increased 2.8 percent, compared with an increase of 3.1 percent.
Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.2 percent in the second quarter, compared with a decrease of 4.2 percent in the first. National defense decreased 0.2 percent, compared with a decrease of 7.1 percent. Nondefense decreased 0.4 percent, in contrast to an increase of 1.8 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 1.0 percent, compared with a decrease of 2.2 percent.
The change in real private inventories subtracted 0.46 percentage point from the second-quarter change in real GDP, after subtracting 0.39 percentage point from the first-quarter change. Private businesses increased inventories $41.4 billion in the second quarter, following increases of $56.9 billion in the first quarter and $70.5 billion in the fourth. …”

If A Foreign Drone Killed Your 16 yr Old Family Member….Tell Me, How Would You Feel?

Obama Drone Strikes Are ‘Mass Murder’ – Jeremy Scahill

Jeremy Scahill: ‘Sad Day for America’

YouTube videos of US unmanned drone attacks in Afghanistan- RT 100105

Are US Drone Attacks Justified? Obama Legal Adviser Koh Says Yes

The Seven Deadly Sins of John Brennan

BY MICAH ZENKO |SEPTEMBER 18, 2012

“…3. We don’t kill civilians.

Stephanopoulos: “Do you stand by the statement you have made in the past that, as effective as they have been, they have not killed a single civilian? That seems hard to believe.”

Brennan: “What I said was that over a period of time before my public remarks that we had no information about a single civilian, a noncombatant being killed. Unfortunately, in war, there are casualties, including among the civilian population.… And unfortunately, sometimes you have to take life to save lives.” (This Week with George Stephanopoulos, April 29, 2012)

In his public comments, Brennan is clear that the Obama administration endorses a drone-first eliminationist strategy for dealing with al Qaeda — and any “military-age males” nearby. This requires a tremendous amount of killing. In June 2011, Brennan claimed: “There hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop.” He later, however, provided a statement to the New York Times that the newspaper said “adjusted the wording of his earlier comment”: “Fortunately, for more than a year, due to our discretion and precision, the U.S. government has not found credible evidence of collateral deaths resulting from U.S. counterterrorism operations outside of Afghanistan or Iraq.”

Brennan did not clarify what constituted “credible evidence,” but as Justin Elliott and I myselfquickly pointed out, there were many public reports — from Pakistani and Yemeni reporters and anonymous administration officials — of civilians killed by U.S. drone strikes. Either Brennan did not receive the same reports of civilian casualties as other administration officials did (an implausible notion), he lacks Internet access to read these anonymous comments (equally implausible because Brennan closely responds to critics of targeted killings in his following media appearances), or he was lying. Regardless, his belief in the infallibility of the find-fix-finish cycle defies an understanding of the inherent flaws and limitations of even the most precise uses of lethal force. …”

“…4. Yemenis love U.S. drone strikes.

“Contrary to conventional wisdom, we see little evidence that [drone strikes] are generating widespread anti-American sentiment or recruits for AQAP. In fact, we see the opposite: Our Yemeni partners are more eager to work with us.… In short, targeted strikes against the most senior and most dangerous AQAP terrorists are not the problem –they are part of the solution.” (“U.S. Policy Toward Yemen,” speech, Aug. 8, 2012)

Based on his education and deployments with the CIA, Brennan is said to have a deep knowledge of the Middle East; he speaks Arabic; and he enjoys contact with many senior officials in foreign intelligence and interior ministries — which explains his de facto role as White House liaison to Yemen. As Brennan says, “I find the Arab world a fascinating place.”

Although he might have unique insights into the Arab mind, actual Yemenis and journalists reporting from the country (see here,here, and here) say that Yemenis hatedrones strikes. There is also a strong correlation between targeted killings in Yemen since December 2009 — primarily conducted by U.S. drones — and increased anger toward the United States and sympathy or allegianceto AQAP. In 2010, the Obama administration described AQAP as “several hundred al Qaeda members”; two years later, it increased to “more than a thousand members.” Now, AQAP has a “few thousand members.” After a drone strike reportedly killed 13 civilians in early September, Yemeni activist Nasr Abdullah noted: “I would not be surprised if a hundred tribesmen joined the lines of al Qaeda as a result of the latest drone mistake.” Let’s hope Brennan and Abdullah can agree to disagree. …”

“…6. Drones are just a part of U.S. counterterrorism strategy.

“[Obama] has insisted that our policy emphasize governance and development as much as security and focus on a clear goal to facilitate a democratic transition while helping Yemen advance political, economic, and security reforms so it can support its citizens and counter AQAP.… This year alone, U.S. assistance to Yemen is more than $337 million. Over half this money, $178 million, is for political transition, humanitarian assistance, and development. Let me repeat that. More than half of the assistance we provide to Yemen is for political transition, humanitarian assistance, and development.… Any suggestion that our policy toward Yemen is dominated by our security and counterterrorism efforts is simply not true.” (“U.S. Policy Toward Yemen,” speech, Aug. 8, 2012)

There are a couple of problems with Brennan’s math. First, he excludes the vast costs of maintaining the manned and unmanned aerial platforms, nearby naval assets, and U.S. military targeters and trainers stationed in growing numbers at the al-Anad Air Base. It also does not include the covert aid funneled to members of President Abd Rabbuh Mansur al-Hadi’s regime and others who support U.S. interests in Yemen. Former President Ali Abdullah Saleh carefully manipulated the presence of suspected international terrorists within his country in order to maintain Western support crucial for his survival, and he reportedlyreceived hundreds of millions of dollars in covert assistance. Some Yemeni officials, analysts, and journalists such as Sam Kimball now claim that under Hadi, “the Yemeni government is fully aware of a number of al Qaeda cells — and their existence is tolerated and their crimes covered up.”

Finally, Brennan’s boasts that U.S. civilian and military assistance is evenly split is nothing new. Between 2007 and 2011, U.S. (overt) aid to Yemen was $642 million: $326 million in security assistance primarily for counterterrorism and border security, and $316 million in civilian assistance for development and humanitarian work. If this alleged 50-50 foreign aid to Yemen strategy led to the collapse of the Saleh regime, widespread anti-American sentiment, and the tripling of al Qaeda, why would it work this time around?”

The Real Reason That TED Talk Was ‘Censored’? It’s Shoddy And Dumb

…it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings.

According to Anderson, when Hanauer found out his talk wasn’t picked, he ”hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story.” …”

“…But what’s worse is that his unemployment line looks nothing like the real thing. I pulled the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (right) and you can see what really happened to unemployment between 1995 and 2009. It refutes Hanauer’s point, if anything. Unemployment didn’t keep going up. It FELL twice (once from 1995-2001 and again from 2003-2007). Sure, it soared in the Great Recession, but did that have anything to do with low taxes on the rich? I went ahead and added the two years since Hanauer’s chart cuts off so you can see how it has come back down. His work is complete junk and dangerously misleading. As my data editor Jon Bruner said, it looks like Hanauer “just took the unemployment rate in 1995 and the unemployment rate in 2009 and drew a random squiggly line between them.” …”

Millionaire Nick Hanauer and Fox News Neil Cavuto

Young Billionaire Says Wealthy Are Not “Job Creators”

Hanauer: “Romneynomics…Dead Wrong”

“…The Congressional Budget Office gave a pretty dire warning about the economy this week. In a report the FBO warned that the combination of budget cuts set to go into effect next January and an expiration of Bush tax cuts, and the payroll tax and extended unemployment benefits would be a fiscal cliff. And if Congress lets us go off that cliff, they predicted that the economy would shrink by 1.3% in the first half of 2013. But will Congress really do anything about it? Serial Entrepreneur and Venture Capitalist Nick Hanauer weighs in. …”

The Ignorance of Nick Hanauer’s TED Speech

If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down. …..In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are “job creators” and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy. …..That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer……Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.

It isn’t actually true that the claimed link is between taxes on the rich and job creation. Rather, that marginal tax rates have an effect on labour supply: raise those marginal rates too high and people will decide to do something else rather than go to work. Appear unpaid on stage at conferences to make a video perhaps. This is the Laffer Curve argument in part. Economic production and thus total taxes raised will be maximised by having marginal tax rates that are not too high.

Yes, sure, this just brings us the shouting match about what is “too high” and what a lovely shouting match that is. But it is a discussion of labour supply and marginal tax rates, not a discussion of job creation.

In the second part Hanauer seems to be complaining that as his consumption doesn’t make up for the fall in other peoples’ consumption there is something wrong with the system. Which is where he begins to go seriously wrong. For we know this, this marginal propensity to consume is an essential part of Keynesian economics and not seriously doubted by any other economists either. It is precisely this which gives us savings which then leads to investment in the economy. Exactly that, that some people do not consume all of their income. Which brings us to the Big Blooper:

The extraordinary differential between a 15% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 35% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is a privilege that is hard to justify without just a touch of deification.

The actual rates can be argued over for sure but the idea that there should be a difference between the tax rate on returns to capital and the returns to labour is not a privilege it’s just plain common good sense.

The first reason is that of course the returns to capital are not taxed at that 15% rate. Near uniquely in the modern world the US charges the corporate income tax on dividends before they are distributed then charges that 15% again upon their receipt as income. Everyone else does one or the other: the company pays the tax (perhaps with additional rate for high earners upon receipt) then distributes or the recipient is taxed and the company pays corporate tax on post dividend distribution profits. So the true dividend tax rate is more like 44% in the US.

Capital gains are also reduced by that corporate income tax so again, the rate is higher than the 15% actually charged to recipients.

But the second point is the more important. These are not taxes on the rich. They are taxes on the return to capital. And it is most assuredly so that it is the investment of capital that creates jobs. Which is why, if we’d like to create jobs we’d really rather like to have lower tax rates on those returns to capital. Indeed, you can find huge swathes of the economics literature (for example, Sir John Mirrlees who got his Nobel in this field) insisting that for this very reason the correct tax rate on the returns to capital is zero.

Because we want people to save, to invest their capital, because this is what creates jobs. These tax rates aren’t limited to the rich either: low income earners with a bit of savings put by pay these same 15% rates. For the very obvious and logical reasons that they are not tax rates for the rich they are tax rates on earnings from capital investment. And we like capital investment, it’s what drives the economy forward and provides jobs. Which is why we should and do tax them less than straight labour income. …”

Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

“…If you’re plugged into the Internet, chances are you’ve seen a TED talk – the wonky, provocative web videos that have become a sort of nerd franchise. TED.com is where you go to find Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg explaining why the world has too few female leaders, or Twitter cofounder Evan Williams sharing the secret power of listening to users to drive company improvement. The slogan of the nonprofit group behind the site is “Ideas Worth Spreading.”

There’s one idea, though, that TED’s organizers recently decided was too controversial to spread: the notion that widening income inequality is a bad thing for America, and that as a result, the rich should pay more in taxes. …”

“…TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer – the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com – to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic – specifically, Hanauer’s contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America’s true “job creators.” …”